Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ACADEMIC DISCOURSE SOCIALISATION: A DISCURSIVE ANALYSIS OF STUDENT IDENTITY
by
SEAN NOEL HAGEN
submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN PSYCHOLOGY WITH SPECIALISATION IN RESEARCH CONSULTATION
at the
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
SUPERVISOR: PROF. S.H. VAN DEVENTER
CO-SUPERVISOR: DR C. OCHSE
JULY 2015
ii
Student number: 3643-334-9 I declare that Academic Discourse Socialisation: A Discursive Analysis of Student Identity is my
own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and
acknowledged by means of complete references.
I further declare that I have not previously submitted this work, or part of it, for examination at
UNISA for another qualification or at any other higher education institution.
____________________ _______________ Signature Date SEAN NOEL HAGEN
iii
Abstract
This study set out to investigate how students construct their identities. Throughout their
socialisation into academia, students are confronted with the paradox of learning as they negotiate
the opposing discourses of enslavement and mastery that construct higher education. Utilising a
critical discursive psychology approach this research aimed to examine the implications this
paradox holds for the development of students’ identities. In-depth interviews with five master’s
degree students allowed for an examination of the linguistic resources available for students to draw
on in constructing their accounts of student-hood. Analysis of the interpretive repertoires and
ideological dilemmas in the text revealed the uptake of contradictory subject positions in
participants’ navigation of academic discourse. In order to address the inconsistencies associated
with these conflicting ‘ways of being a student’, participants ‘worked’ a face in their interactions
with academic discourse. Their face-work served to address the paradox by integrating the
contradictory positions evident in their accounts. It is in the agency displayed in the integration of
these disparate positions that the emancipating student is revealed.
Keywords: academic discourse, interpretive repertoires, subject positions, student agency,
tertiary education.
iv
Dedication
For my mom, Bokkie Hagen and my late dad, Peter Hagen. Thank you both for teaching me
the value of hard work and perseverance. Thank you for your support through thick and thin and for
being the best possible parents any child could dream of. Mom, I admire your courage and I learn
from you every day. Dad, we miss you dearly.
v
Acknowledgments
I would like to give my sincere thanks to the following people:
Professor Vasi van Deventer, my supervisor, without whose input, support and motivation this
would not have been possible;
Dr Caryl Ochse, my co-supervisor, for your input, editing and for always being willing to listen
over a cup of coffee and a cigarette;
My family, for putting up with me;
My friends and colleagues in the Department for your friendship, support and encouragement.
vi
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................... 3
Section 1: Situating the Study: Context, Concepts and Theoretical Orientation ..................... 3
1. Context of the Research ................................................................................................. 3
2. Explication of Key Concepts ......................................................................................... 5
2.1. Discourse ......................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Academic Discourse ....................................................................................... 8
2.3. Student Socialisation ..................................................................................... 11
3. Theoretical Perspectives on Student Socialisation....................................................... 12
Section 2: Problematising Academic Discourse .................................................................... 19
1. The Landscape of 21st Century Higher Education ....................................................... 19
2. The Paradox of Learning: Enslavement or Emancipation? ......................................... 20
2.1. Academic Discourse in the Classroom ......................................................... 23
2.2. Institutional Academic Discourse ................................................................. 26
2.3. Disciplinary Academic Discourse ................................................................. 29
3. The Research Problem ................................................................................................. 31
4. Rationale for the Research ........................................................................................... 32
Chapter 3: Method ............................................................................................................... 34
1. Discourse Analysis: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations ............................ 34
1.1. A Discursive Psychology Approach to Investigating Identity ...................... 35
2. Design .......................................................................................................................... 37
3. Ten Stages in the Analysis of Discourse ...................................................................... 37
vii
3.1. Stage 1: Research Questions ......................................................................... 38
3.2. Stage 2: Sample Selection ............................................................................. 38
3.3. Stage 3: Data Collection ............................................................................... 40
3.4. Stage 4: The Interviews ................................................................................. 41
3.5. Stage 5: Transcription ................................................................................... 42
3.6. Stage 6: Coding ............................................................................................. 42
3.7. Stage 7: Data Analysis .................................................................................. 44
3.8. Validation ...................................................................................................... 49
3.9. The Report..................................................................................................... 49
3.10. Application .................................................................................................. 50
4. Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................. 50
Chapter 4: Analytic Results ................................................................................................ 52
1. The Behavioural Repertoire ......................................................................................... 52
2. The Competence Repertoire......................................................................................... 68
3. The Power Repertoire .................................................................................................. 79
Chapter 5: Discussion .......................................................................................................... 93
1. The Behavioural Repertoire ......................................................................................... 94
2. The Competence Repertoire......................................................................................... 97
3. The Power Repertoire ................................................................................................ 100
4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 101
Chapter 6: Reflection and Validation .............................................................................. 103
1. Reflection ................................................................................................................... 103
2. Validation of Findings ............................................................................................... 107
viii
2.1. Fruitfulness.................................................................................................. 108
2.2. Robustness and Transparency ..................................................................... 109
3. Limitations ................................................................................................................. 110
References ........................................................................................................................... 111
Appendix A: Ethical Clearance Certificate ..................................................................... 117
Appendix B: Consent Form .............................................................................................. 118
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The process of academic socialisation is not an easy one for students to navigate. At
undergraduate level, students find themselves in the midst of an unknown community with
new ways of ‘seeing’, ‘doing’ and ‘being’ in the world. They are expected to engage with
their new communities and learn the languages and ‘cultural practices’ of the academy. As
they move from the periphery, as newcomers, to a more central position within their
academic communities at postgraduate level, their interactions with, and experiences of,
academic culture continually shape their identities as students. Developing a coherent student
identity is essential for academic growth and success. However, if one considers the
paradoxical nature of learning, developing such a coherent sense of self may not be quite that
easily achieved.
Throughout the course of their studies, students are expected to abide by the rules and
regulations of their universities and diligently attend to the prescriptions of their lecturers.
They are required to demonstrate mastery of their academic work by becoming
knowledgeable by learning the competencies associated with their fields of study. The
process of learning, in essence, results in the student’s enslavement to and by their academic
and disciplinary communities. At the same time, however, the academy expects its subjects to
demonstrate autonomy and agency in navigating their studies and to emancipate themselves
by breaking free from their dependence on the instruction and guidance of their lecturers and
supervisors. Emancipation is thus a process of mastering through enslavement. This research
set out to examine how students navigate the opposing discourses of enslavement and
mastery.
This study documented the academic socialisation experiences of a group of master’s
degree students. The data were organised around three analytic concepts central to a critical
discursive analysis, namely interpretive repertoires, subject positions and ideological
2
dilemmas. An analysis of these discursive resources facilitated an examination of the lived
ideologies of present day student-hood, which, in turn, shed light on how students construct
their identities.
The dissertation consists of six chapters. Chapter Two is divided in two sections.
Section One details key concepts as well as the study’s theoretical orientation. The literature
review in Section Two problematises students’ socialisation in light of the nature of the
dominant discourses that construct academia. Chapter Three presents the methodological
orientation and the research methods employed in this study. The results of the analysis are
discussed in Chapter Four. To facilitate transparency regarding the interpretation of the data,
longer extracts have been reproduced in an attempt to allow the reader to ‘get a feel for’ the
empirical materials and to evaluate the claims made by this research. Chapter Five offers an
interpretation of the analytic results and the findings from this research. The final chapter
considers the implications of the researcher’s identity for the execution of the various phases
of this research. The chapter closes with a discussion of the validation of the findings from
this study.
3
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Section 1: Situating the Study: Context, Concepts and Theoretical Orientation
1. Context of the Research
Besides learning and mastering the subject material associated with their fields of
study, in order to successfully navigate their learning journeys students also need to become
proficient in the ways of ‘doing’ academia. Students need to learn the social practices (e.g.
the language(s), behaviours, customs and culture) of academic discourse in their specific
disciplinary fields. Academic socialisation (i.e. socialisation into academia and its related
practices) has received increasing attention from researchers across several disciplines in
recent years. In Psychology various developmental theories have been used to examine the
changes students undergo in higher education and the concomitant increases in their
developmental capabilities as a result (Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). In the context
of Graduate Student Education, organisational socialisation theories have been used to
investigate how students are socialised into university through their experiences with the
“processes, traditions, relationships and rules” of the culture of their university (Mendoza &
Gardner, 2010, p. 20). Within the field of linguistics, researchers have examined how both
native and non-native speakers (i.e. first and second language students) learn the academic
language and practices associated with their specific discourse communities (Duff, 2010).
Irrespective of whether the focus is on students’ personal or social development, the
institutional processes that shape their development or on their acquisition of academic
language competencies, a central concern of higher education should be how best to
accommodate students in their socialisation into academia and its practices (Duff, 2007).
For students, an integral part of navigating the socialisation process involves the
development of their identities as students (Duff, 2010; Ho, 2007; Morita, 2004). As they
advance from undergraduate study to master’s and doctoral level, students’ identities are
4
constantly developing as they grow from novice newcomers in their fields of study into
seasoned subject specialists. Throughout the socialisation process, as students progress along
their learning trajectories, their identities constantly evolve as they change how they
participate in their academic communities (Lave & Wenger, 1991). They are also likely to
develop multiple identities as they engage with the various discourse communities of which
they are part (White & Lowenthal, 2011). As Lave (1996, p. 157) notes, “crafting identities in
practice becomes the fundamental project subjects engage in”. The development of their
identities as students is an essential process through which newcomers to academia find their
own voices as academics (Duff, 2010). Denying students their voices as they navigate their
socialisation into academic culture impinges on their learning and sense-making, thus
diminishing the opportunities students have to understand and identify with their academic
communities (Zamel, 1998).
From the very first moment that students step in line (or go online) to enrol at
university they are exposed to academia and its associated practices. The student’s exposure
to, and interaction with, academic discourse essentially shapes their development and
experiences of what it means to be a university student. However, by nature, academic
discourse is saturated with the operation of power and ideology, an inescapable reality with
which students are confronted throughout the course of their studies. From the university’s
intimidating physical disposal of space with its large, imposing buildings and lecture halls, to
the activities of academic apprenticeship that are monitored, regulated and evaluated,
students are at the mercy of the more powerful institution (Grant, 1997). To a large extent,
students are unable to challenge the dominant discourse of the university and thus have no
choice but to conform to the traditions of academia. This status quo, indisputably, holds
implications for the way in which students interface with academic discourse and the
concomitant development of their identities as students.
5
2. Explication of Key Concepts
2.1. Discourse.
A discursive analysis, as is the case in this study, requires an explication of the term
‘discourse’. Considering the variety of perspectives in discourse analysis and the theoretical
and methodological variation that exists across these perspectives, producing a single,
integrated definition of ‘discourse’ is tricky. Many researchers use the term discourse to refer
to all forms of talking and writing (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). However, there is more to
discourse than just spoken or written language. Wood and Kroger (2000, p. 19) use the term
discourse to refer to “all spoken and written forms of language use (talk and text) as social
practice” [emphasis added]. This definition emphasises that discourse (or language) is social
action beyond the activity of speaking or writing. This means that language has a
performative quality – discourse functions to perform some action. As framed by Wiggins
and Potter (2008), discourse is action-orientated: In talking (or writing) we are not just saying
things, we are also doing things. In other words, language is not only used as a medium for
describing ourselves and the world around us, but these descriptions are oriented to different
functions. People therefore use language “in the service of action” (Wiggins & Potter, 2008,
p. 76), that is to accomplish something with their words: In talking, we blame, we criticise,
we empathise, we support, we persuade and we request.
As Potter and Wetherell (1987) note, if language is used to accomplish different
actions, an examination of language use will vary according to its function (or the purpose of
the talk). Recognising this acknowledges that variation is a feature of discourse. People use
language in a variety of ways to achieve a variety of outcomes or consequences. Variability is
therefore expected “not only between persons, but within persons” (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p.
10).
6
Discourse is both constructed and constructive (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Wiggins &
Potter, 2008). Discourse is constructed in that language is made up of linguistic resources (i.e.
made up of language building blocks – words, categories, metaphors, repertories etc.) that
construct the world in particular ways (Wiggins & Potter, 2008). The constructive nature of
discourse enables people to use language variably to construct different accounts of the social
world. People can therefore construct different versions of themselves, other people, events
and the world to achieve different outcomes, depending on the purpose for which it is used.
There is an active selection as to how accounts are constructed and which language resources
are included in accounts and which are excluded (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Talking about a
person or event in one way is always alternative to another way of describing the person or
event and is therefore one of potentially many ways of describing a person or event.
Discourse is also constructive in that the versions of the world that people construct do not
exist prior to their talk (Wiggins & Potter, 2008). Discourse constructs subjects, objects and
even entire institutions such as medicine and science (Edley, 2001). Discourse thus
constitutes who we are and the world around us, drawing us into particular positions or
identities – we are therefore produced and positioned by discourse as certain subjects. As
Edley (2001, p. 210) notes, who we are “always stands in relation to the available text or
narratives” and “whatever we might say (and think) about ourselves and others as people will
always be in terms of a language provided for us by history.”
The assumption that language constructs the world illustrates the shift away from
viewing language as a means to understanding cognitive representations of an objective
reality (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). In other words, language does not reflect or reveal the
social world ‘out there’ as we perceive it or as it is stored in our memories. This is in contrast
to traditional cognitivist assumptions made in psychology, where language is seen as a
resource to explain the inner workings of the mind or as a route to explain behaviour.
7
Rather, language is the behaviour to be explained (Wood & Kroger, 2000). Recognising this
means recognising that language does not provide objective descriptions of the ‘real’ world;
rather a description of an event or object is only one of a potential many ways of describing
the event or object. Reality is created in and through talk (or discourse). This also means that
“no single truth is possible” (Taylor, 2001b, p.12). Since reality is neither singular nor
regular, the assumption, rather, is one of multiple realities and truths. The emphasis is
therefore on the variability of language as it is used discursively to construct relativist (as
opposed to realist) versions of the world.
Another central observation of discourse involves recognising the “situated” nature of
discourse (Wiggins & Potter, 2008, p. 77). These authors note that not only is discourse
situated within a specific sequential environment of words which is understood as part of a
particular argumentative framework, but that discourse is also situated within a particular
institutional setting such as a university lecture hall or a telephone helpline. As such, it is
important to examine discourse “in situ, as it happens, bound up within its situational
context” (p. 77). Accounts of the social world vary according to the functions they are
designed to perform, which, in turn, vary according to the context of their production (Potter
& Wetherell, 1987). It is therefore important to remember that particular accounts are
“occasioned phenomena” (Wooffitt, 2005, p. 150), that arise from, and are designed for, the
intricacies of interaction. At the same time, the descriptions produced in people’s accounts
echo the values and meanings espoused by the wider discourses that constrain and shape our
social worlds (Wooffitt, 2005). Discourse therefore cannot be divorced from the local or
immediate interactive context of its production nor from the broader social, ideological
context within which it is produced.
From a Foucaultian perspective, the term discourse is also used to reflect “much
broader, historically developing linguistic practices” (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 6).
8
Foucault's definition of discourse is summarised by Lessa (2006, p. 285) as “systems of
thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that
systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak." Here the term
discourse refers to the ideological influences inherent in dominant discourses and an analysis
of discourse examines the ways in which language is used to restrict how people think and
speak and write and act in the world (Wooffitt, 2005). Inherent in the Foucaultian perspective
on discourse is the notion of power which focuses attention on the kinds of “objects and
subjects” which are constituted in and through discourse as well as the different “ways-of-
being” these constitutions make available for people to draw on in conversation (Willig,
2001, p. 91). Discourse is structured by power and dominance and thus influences the minds
of those dominated such that they accept this dominance, and ultimately act and comply with
the interests of those in power (Mohamed & Banda, 2008). In this view power is a property
of social arrangements since “discourses shape and constitute our identities and legitimate
certain kinds of relationships between those identities, thus locking people into particular
kinds of arrangements” (Wooffitt, 2005, p. 151).
In sum, discourse (or language) is a social practice. People actively use language to
construct the world in particular ways. Moreover, these discursive constructions are oriented
to particular functions in particular contexts. Discourse also constructs the social world and
relations of power that have consequences for how we can behave, thus constituting our
identities in certain ways.
2.2. Academic Discourse.
At its most basic level, academic discourse refers to written and spoken language and
communication in an academic context (Duff, 2010). Zamel (1998, p. 187) maintains that
academic discourse is “a specialized form of reading, writing and thinking done in the
academy [...] a kind of language with its own vocabulary, norms, sets of conventions, and
9
modes of inquiry”. White and Lowenthal (2011, p. 284) note that academic discourse
represents a “specific yet tacit discursive style expected of participants in the academy”.
However, as with the term ‘discourse’, academic discourse also denotes more than just
academic texts or language per se. As Duff (2010, p. 175) notes, academic discourse is
“embodied both in texts and in other modes of interaction and representation”. Zamel (1998)
conceptualises academic discourse as a distinct culture made up of disciplines, each
representing a separate cultural community into which students are initiated. Students new to
an academic discourse community need to learn not only the discourse community’s “ways
with words” but also its “ways of knowing” (Zamel, 1998, p. 188). Academic discourse
therefore does not merely entail learning the language of academic culture but also the
‘doing’ of the culture. As such, academic discourse is a “complex representation of
knowledge and authority and identity” with strong “social, cultural, institutional and
historical foundations and functions” (Duff, 2010, p. 175).
Academic discourse is continually evolving and does not exist as a static, established
set of conventions (Duff, 2007). Rather, Duff (2007) notes, academic discourse may be
considered a “social construction” (p. 3) based on the histories and social contexts of
individuals, their learning communities and the power relations operating in these
communities. As Zamel (1998) maintains, academic discourse is neither unitary nor are its
disciplines fixed: As is the case with all cultures, academic discourse is continually subject to
reshaping as new members enter and change the community. Academic discourse therefore
evolves as its disciplines, genres and participants change and evolve.
Duff (2007) notes that the nature of academic discourse in today’s information age, is
such that students are being socialised into “multimodal, intertexutal, heteroglossic literacies”
(p. 4) Academic discourse, whether spoken or written is not purely academic in nature.
Academic discourse today is infused with references to popular culture texts such as
10
television programmes, movies and references to sports or current affairs issues, producing a
“pop-culture-laden hybrid form of discourse in education” that builds on students’ personal
and academic interests and background knowledge (p .5). As such, academic discourse is a
“social, cognitive and rhetorical process and an accomplishment, a form of enculturation,
social practice, positioning, representation, and stance taking” (Duff, 2010, p. 170).
Given the definition of discourse adopted in this study, the term ‘academic discourse’
is used to refer to more than just the language of academia and the terminologies and
methodologies of a subject or discipline. It also encompasses academic social practices that
construct academia and its institutions as well as the identities and roles of its participants
(students, lecturers, administrative staff, management etc.). Similarly, academic discourse is
also constructed by the practices of academia and its participants. It therefore involves an
active, constructive and constructed practice. Disciplines (for example Psychology) are
powerful in determining the domain of discourse – what can be said and what cannot. But the
discipline does not have absolute control: Experts of a discipline (academics and
professionals) construct the discipline as much as they work within the confines of the
discipline. In other words, the discipline is constructing and determining as much as it is
constructed and determined.
Furthermore, academic discourse is produced and situated within particular historical,
socio-cultural and political contexts. The practice of academia occurs in certain institutional
settings (for example universities, lecture halls and libraries) and in the practice of academic
activities (such as reading library books for a literature survey, attending workshops on
research methodology, employing the appropriate register when consulting with a supervisor
and even in the social banter amongst students during smoke breaks). The practices and
traditions of academia follow and function according to certain social norms and ideologies
embedded in these institutions. As such, relations of power are evident in how students
11
address their lecturers and professors, in the formalised traditions of producing scientifically-
correct articles, and in what is considered appropriate behaviour in the classroom.
2.3. Student Socialisation.
Mendoza and Gardner (2010, p. 19) broadly define socialisation as “the process
through which an individual learns to adopt the values, skills, attitudes, norms and knowledge
needed for membership in a given society, group or organisation”. Socialisation occurs by
observing others in their roles and through formal and informal experiences, over time, with
various processes, traditions, policies, customs, practices and values (Mendoza & Gardner,
2010). In the context of academia, student socialisation, then, involves learning the
appropriate behaviours and competencies associated with an academic community. Students
need to learn the skills associated with academic discourse such as reading academic texts,
producing assignments, writing exams, listening to lectures and acquiring and employing
appropriate academic speaking competence (Limberg, 2007). Students learn these skills
through interaction with their teachers, peers and other role players in the academic
community; by learning the theory and practices associated with their disciplinary field(s) of
study and through exposure to the culture of their university or college, as well as the
broader, discursively constructed academic discourse community. In so doing, students
develop an understanding of what is expected of them in their role as ‘student’.
Current conceptualisations of socialisation do not denote a “mindless, passive
conditioning that leads invariably, with exposure or feedback or practice, to desired,
homogenous responses, competencies, behaviours and stances on the part of novices engaged
in them” (Duff, 2010, p. 171). Rather, the socialisation of newcomers is seen as a complex
process of “two-way negotiation rather than a unidirectional enculturation” (Morita, 2004, p.
575) and involves displays of agency, resistance, innovation and self-determination, in which
students are unlikely to simply internalise and reproduce the repository of “linguistic and
12
ideological resources” of academic discourse (Duff, 2010, p. 171). It is more likely to involve
struggles concerning access to resources, tensions and negotiations between community
members with different degrees of expertise and experience as well as transformation of the
community’s practices and the identities of its participants (Morita, 2004).
3. Theoretical Perspectives on Student Socialisation
Student socialisation has been examined from within various disciplinary fields.
Research in Student Affairs in higher education has examined the intrapersonal and
interpersonal changes students undergo in their socialisation at university (or college) from
various developmental perspectives (Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Psychosocial
theories (such as those of Erik Erikson and Arthur Chickering) have been used to explain the
challenges students face at various developmental stages during their university (or college)
years. Cognitive-structural theories explore how students interpret and perceive events in
their lives by examining their intellectual, cognitive and moral development. Typological
theories, such as the Myers-Briggs theory of personality types, draw attention to the
individual differences in how students learn and develop throughout the course of their
studies.
Student socialisation has also been examined using organisational socialisation
perspectives (Mendoza & Gardner, 2010). Within the context of graduate education (i.e.
master’s and doctoral study), Golde (1998, p. 56) describes socialisation as a process by
which “a newcomer is made a member of a community – in the case of graduate students, the
community of an academic department in a particular discipline”. Lovitts (2001) notes that,
typically, graduate student socialisation occurs across three stages, namely the entry and
adjustment stage, the development of competence and the research stage. The entry and
adjustment stage pertains to their first year of enrolment at university in which students
gradually transform from ‘outsiders’ to ‘insiders’ in their new academic communities
13
(Kuwahara, 2008). The second stage, corresponding to the student’s second year of graduate
study, involves the completion of coursework and examination requirements. After passing
the examinations, in the research stage, the student decides on a research topic, prepares and
defends the research proposal, completes the research. The process culminates in the writing
of the dissertation.
Although the two models described above may be useful in understanding the
developmental challenges students face and the institutional processes underlying their
progress across various stages of socialisation, they reflect the modernist assumption that
socialisation is a one-directional process that ‘happens’ to students (Li & Cassanave, 2008).
Postmodernist perspectives, on the other hand, consider socialisation to be a two way process
in which newcomers both mold and are molded by a professional or institutional culture
(McDaniels, 2010) Thus, the student also affects and influences the organisation in the
process of their socialisation (Mendoza & Gardner, 2010). Duff (2007, p. 3) notes that it is
within this “sociocultural, interactional and increasingly poststructural” paradigm that
researchers examine how newcomers are socialised into academic discourse.
Research in the field of applied linguistics has focussed on ‘academic discourse
socialisation’. This concept refers to the socialisation of newcomers into the discursive
practices of an academic community (Duff, 2007). Such research seeks to examine how
students develop the capacities and capabilities to participate in new discourse communities.
In the literature, the term ‘academic discourse socialisation’ is also referred to as ‘language
socialisation’ (Duff, 2007), ‘the development of academic literacies’, ‘academic
enculturation’ (Duff, 2010) and ‘participation in communities of practice’ (Lave & Wenger,
1991). The idea central to all these terms is that of a social process through which novices
(students) are apprenticed into an academic community through interaction and cognitive
experience within those communities (Duff, 2007).
14
In linguistics, much of this research has focused on students’ second language
acquisition of ESL (English as a second language) and how they are socialised into the oral
and written discursive practices of their academic communities (Duff, 2007). Morita (2004)
notes two main orientations of such research. The first is a “product-orientated approach” that
aims to identify what students need to know to participate competently in an academic
community (p. 574). Common to this line of inquiry are methods such as needs analysis
surveys that aim to find out what academic language and skills are required to successfully
navigate the academic tasks required in various disciplines. Genre analysis, which is also
classified as product orientated, aims to “identify the specific linguistic and rhetorical
conventions” (p. 574) that newcomers to a discourse community need to master. Such
research is characteristic of the unidirectional assumptions mentioned above that treats
socialisation as an unproblematic assimilation into academic discourse (Morita, 2004).
The second approach in this area of research is classified as “process orientated”
(Morita, 2004, p. 574). As its name suggests it is concerned with the processes of how
students are socialised into academic discourse. This line of inquiry investigates “the situated
or socially and temporally constructed processes” (p. 574) through which newcomers are
socialised into academic discourse. Seen in this light, socialisation is conceptualised not as
the one-way acquisition of pre-given knowledge or skills. Rather, it involves “a complex
process of negotiating identities, cultures or power relations” (Morita, 2004, p. 575) in which
learners often have to navigate multiple, changing and sometimes competing discourses
inherent in their academic communities. The present study falls within this second line of
inquiry as the focus is on the processual aspects of students’ socialisation rather than the
acquisition of isolated sets of skills.
In the context of the present study, academic discourse socialisation is conceptualised
as reflecting more than the acquisition and development of academic literacies. In this study,
15
the notion of students’ socialisation into academic discourse is better captured by the terms
‘academic enculturation’ and ‘participation in communities of practice’ as these denote a
process beyond the development of written or oral academic language competencies. Notions
of culture and community reflect a concern with student socialisation that includes, but is not
limited to, the development of their academic language competencies. The focus is therefore
on how students who enter a new academic community acquire not only its “ways with
words” but also its “ways of knowing” (Zamel, 1998, p. 188). It suggests the idea of both
absorbing and being absorbed by the culture of academia in order to understand the ways in
which the academic culture works (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As Elbow (quoted in Zamel,
1998) notes, such a process requires not just acquiring and using the jargon of a culture but
also involves doing the culture. Socialisation into academic culture therefore requires
“immersion, engagement, contextualization [and] fullness of experience” for students to
become proficient in the understanding and practice of academia (Zamel, 1998, p. 188).
So how do students go about learning to ‘do’ academic culture? Duff (2010) holds
that, central to the socialisation process is the notion of apprenticeship: Learning to think and
act in particular ways appropriate to the academic community. Traditional notions of
apprenticeship assume that learning occurs either through the internalisation of transmitted
knowledge or by the process of “learning by doing” where novices observe and imitate the
activities performed by an expert (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 31). Such models of
apprenticeship are characteristic of one-way conceptualisations of socialisation involving a
passive transfer and appropriation of pre-existing knowledge (Jacoby & Gonzales, 1991).
Lave and Wenger (1991) conceive the process of learning through apprenticeship in a
different manner to such traditional models. As noted by Li and Casanave (2008, p. 5), Lave
and Wenger’s theory moves beyond such conceptions of socialisation, providing a “less
unidirectional and more participatory” view of apprenticeship.
16
Lave and Wenger (1991) view learning through apprenticeship as a “situated activity”
(p. 29). In contrast to the cognitivist conception, learning does not involve the accumulation
of knowledge that is incrementally stored in the minds of learners. Rather, learning is located
in the “evolving relationships” continually being forged between community members as
they partake in the activities of the communities of which they are part (Haneda, 2006, p.
808). Learning is situated in the trajectories of co-participation and is thus understood as “an
integral part of generative social practice in the lived-in world” (Lave and Wenger (1991, p.
31). From this perspective, interactive social engagement provides the context for learning
(Hanks, 1991).
Central to this conception of learning through apprenticeship is the notion of
“legitimate peripheral participation” (LPP) in communities of practice (CoP) (Lave &
Wenger, 1991, p. 29). Learning occurs by participating in the sociocultural practices of a
community. Mastery of the knowledge and skills of the community occurs as newcomers
move from the periphery of a community’s activities towards full participation. However,
legitimate peripheral participation does not involve mere simple participation in a role at the
edge of a larger process. Rather, the apprentice engages in several roles simultaneously:
Subordinate, learning practitioner and aspiring expert, “each implying a different sort of
responsibility, a different set of role relations and a different interactive involvement”
(Hanks, 1991, p. 23). Participating on the periphery provides the opportunity for apprentices
to make the practices their own as they develop a general idea or “skeletal understanding” of
the community’s practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 96). As newcomers move centripetally
from the periphery towards becoming fully fledged members they become increasingly
competent in the ways of ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ in the community.
Considering that LPP involves increasing, and hence, changing forms of participation,
being socialised into a CoP necessarily involves a continual (re)negotiation and
17
(re)construction of the identities of its participants (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Given that the
organisation of any social structure involves relations of power (including the social
structures in CoPs in which established members arguably wield more power than
newcomers to a community) LPP is a conflictual process in which the identities of both
newcomers and established members are continually transformed. Furthermore, the ways in
which recognised members and newcomers establish and maintain their identities generate
competing viewpoints on the community’s practices and its subsequent development (Lave &
Wenger, 1991). This means that the CoPs themselves (and their practices) change and evolve
since the community’s activities and the participation of individuals involved in these
activities, together with their knowledge and perspectives, are “mutually constitutive” (Lave
& Wenger, 1991, p. 117). LPP therefore refers to both “the development of skilled identities”
as well as to the “reproduction and transformation of communities of practice” (p. 55).
In this study, learning the ways of ‘being’ and ‘doing’ in an academic community is
regarded as a social practice. Socialisation into academia occurs relationally, between all role
players involved, and does not simply involve the unproblematic transmission of knowledge
from lecturer to student. It encompasses more than “practicing the discipline-specific
language, norms and conventions” (Zamel, 1998, p.189). Students are socialised through a
process of co-participation involving increasing engagement with an academic community
and its practices. Furthermore, besides negotiating the “institutional and disciplinary
technologies and epistemologies” of academia, newcomers also have to develop their own
voice in the production and interpretation of academic discourse (Duff, 2010, p. 170). An
integral part of this process involves negotiating their identities as students: Ways of being,
knowing and doing ‘student-hood’. As students move from the periphery at undergraduate
level to a more central position within the community at master’s and doctoral level, their
identities constantly evolve as they advance from being newcomers towards becoming
18
established members of the academic community. As their socialisation progresses along
their learning trajectories they constantly renegotiate their identities as they “move through
different forms of participation” and become increasingly competent in their fields of study
(Jawitz, 2009, p. 243).
Given the notion of learning through peripheral participation, the question is then: In
an academic community of practice, how do students negotiate and construct their identities?
Before embarking on an answer to this question, a closer examination of the nature of
academic discourse is required.
19
Section 2: Problematising Academic Discourse
1. The Landscape of 21st Century Higher Education
Changes in the status quo of higher education over the past few decades have seen a
shift away from traditional models of teaching and learning. With an ever diversifying
student population, universities have had to bring about changes in the way curricula is
designed for, and offered to, students. This shift has seen a move away from purely theory-
driven courses to applied, experiential learning programs and curricula aimed at producing
workplace-ready graduates who are equipped with the necessary skills to perform upon
entering the job market. Today the emphasis is on interactive, dynamic and fluid curriculum
designs, rather than the static and boring ‘wrap-around’ courses that have been offered in
higher education in the past. In this ever changing landscape, universities have had to
embrace these changes in order to meet the expectations that 21st century students have of
higher education. In response to these changes, approaches to teaching and learning have
shifted from traditional teacher-centred approaches towards favouring student-centred
pedagogy (McCabe & O’Conner, 2014). No longer is the role of the lecturer that of the expert
‘delivering’ knowledge but rather one of collaborator in the facilitation of knowledge
production. Student-centred approaches require a shift in responsibility such that the student,
rather than the lecturer, is expected to assume and demonstrate a greater ownership of his/her
learning than in teacher-centred approaches (McCabe & O’Conner, 2014). Students can no
longer assume the position of the passive recipient of knowledge. Rather, today’s learning
requires students to be active participants who demonstrate an “autonomous, proactive and
constructive engagement” in the learning process rather than a passive dependency on
receiving instruction from their lecturers (McCabe & O’Conner, 2014 p. 354). The
information age requires students as active agents who produce and are able to take
responsibility for their own learning, rather than merely memorising the contents of a
20
prescribed book in order to master their field of study. Frand (2000, p.17) maintains that “The
challenge for educators and higher education institutions is to incorporate the information
mind set of today’s learners into their programs so as to create communities of lifelong
learners”. This information-mind set assumes that it is more important to be able to manage
complex information rather than simply accumulating knowledge. Today’s students no longer
need to learn facts by heart when they can simply connect to the internet from their mobile
phones to find the information they need. Rather, there is a need for fast, efficient and
immediate communication, and to be permanently connected to others (Frand, 2000). Van
Deventer (2010) notes that the learning systems of the past, characterised by static and
inflexible practices of conformation, are no longer adequate to meet the needs of information
mind set learners: Today’s students require learning that allows individuals to move at their
own pace and manage their own learning activities that are authentic, personally relevant and
embedded in real-world practice.
2. The Paradox of Learning: Enslavement or Emancipation?
Although there is a considerable amount of information in the literature about learner
independence, not much can be found about learner emancipation or liberation (van
Deventer, 2010). Learner emancipation may be conceptualised as “a process of academic
professionalisation” in which learners are able to not only manage their own learning
processes independently, but become “liberated from subject material – moving from being
ruled by the material to being masters of the material” (van Deventer, 2010, p. 169).
However, the nature of the learning process is paradoxical. It requires “mastering through
enslavement” (p. 169) in that mastering a field of study occurs by a process of enslavement
into that particular field. Take Psychology as an example: Psychology students generally
need to complete an undergraduate degree and obtain an average above a certain (pre-decided
and dictated) percentage – say 65% - for their third year psychology subjects in order to be
21
considered for postgraduate study. During undergraduate study, students undergo formal
instruction and evaluation and are subjected to the terminologies, theories and methodologies
of the discipline, thus becoming enslaved by the discipline in order to master it. Upon
completion of an honours degree, if a student wants to register and practice as a Psychologist,
s/he must, in South Africa, obtain a master’s degree. Gaining entry into a master’s program at
most universities involves going through a selection process to establish their competency
and suitability for master’s study in Psychology. ‘Experts’ select only a handful of students
for the degree and the duration of the master’s program is spent further instructing, evaluating
and supervising the student. Upon obtaining a master’s degree and after passing a national
board exam, the learner is finally declared competent in the ways and means of the discipline
and can register as a psychologist in whichever subfield s/he intends to practice. Van
Deventer (2010) states that emancipation is supposed to follow at doctoral level but notes that
even doctoral candidates are subjected to the rules and regulations of the discipline: Even
though a doctoral degree is supposed to advance the boundaries and contribute new
knowledge to a discipline, a supervisor is still required to guide the student in the do’s and
don’ts towards the successful completion of the degree. Van Deventer (2010) questions this
enslavement as an emancipating contribution to the discipline, maintaining that the truly
emancipated learner is not one who is first enslaved into the ways of the discipline and
through this enslavement then becomes a master in the discipline. Rather, learning that is
emancipating requires that the student is able to independently manage his/her own learning
actions and processes, moving beyond merely being knowledgeable about a certain subject
area to a position of active agency in the learning process. Moreover, such an agent is able to
master, command and work with the subject content and the wisdom and competencies of a
discipline from a personal stance rather than simply being defined by the existing
delineations of their field of study. The emancipated learner is thus “a learner showing a high
22
degree of agency in the form of a potential to disturb, interrupt and dislocate existing frames
of reference” (van Deventer, 2010, p. 172).
Van Deventer (2010) states that although the notion of ‘learner independence’ is
conceptualised in terms of learners’ ability to take charge of, and manage, their own learning
processes and activities, and is thus associated with self-development, learner emancipation
should, in itself, be considered as a psychological element in personal development and not
merely as the ability to show independent cognitive mastery of subject material. Van
Deventer notes that the absence of terminology such as ‘learner emancipation’ in educational
discourse can result in a restricted conceptualisation of learning and cognition.
Learning through enslavement does not fit the information mind set of the modern
day student. Rather, learning through emancipation is a more suited approach for today’s
learners than disciplinary enslavement. However, despite changing student demographics and
the concomitant changes in pedagogy, many of the discourses that construct teaching and
learning in higher education are enslaving discourses thus disabling, rather than enabling,
student emancipation. At undergraduate level, when students are still considered novices,
disciplinary enslavement is arguably at its most acute. Students are expected to conform to
the dictates of academic discourse without much room for manoeuvre or recourse. As they
progress up the academic hierarchy, however, it is expected that they shake off the shackles
of dependence and become increasingly autonomous in the execution of their academic work.
This study explores the implications this paradox holds for students’ socialisation into
academia, specifically in terms of the development of their identities as students.
Before further investigating this issue, it is pertinent to examine the nature of
academic discourse and its effects in the classroom, as well as its effects at an institutional
and disciplinary level.
23
2.1. Academic Discourse in the Classroom.
Benwell and Stokoe (2002) note that institutional contexts serve to order patterns of
talk in particular ways. Due to the regularised function and setting of institutional language
(including language use in educational contexts) some degree of ritual and uniformity exists
in the linguistic features of educational discourse. In specific, the functional constraints
imposed by educational discourse, which are mostly oriented towards executing specific
tasks, involve a “hierarchical participant framework” (p. 430). The consequence of this
hierarchy is an “apportioning of responsibility for particular parts of discourse” (Drew &
Sorjonen, quoted in Benwell & Stokoe, 2002, p. 430). In other words, classroom talk follows
distinct patterns in the sequence and distribution of interactional moves in teacher-student
discussions: The teacher generally asks the questions that requires a response from the
student. The teacher then acknowledges and evaluates the student’s response (Benwell &
Stokoe, 2002). The authors note that such exchanges, which are further supported by the
institutional roles attributed to ‘teacher’ and ‘student’, provide for asymmetrical interaction
patterns in which teachers control classroom discourse. It is the teacher who asks the
questions whereas the student merely responds. Teachers set agendas that students merely
follow. Academic discourse therefore encourages and ultimately legitimises the asymmetrical
nature of these dynamics. The nature of academic discourse, then, lends itself to positioning
the teacher as powerful and the student as subservient.
Benwell and Stokoe (2002) investigated task-setting sequences in university tutorial
sessions and found that, in tutor-led discussions, students orient towards a “transmission” (p.
449) model of teaching. Students were uncomfortable manipulating academic discourse.
Rather they expected agency on the part of the tutor and thus resisted the opportunity for the
collaborative and interactional production of knowledge. Furthermore, in both tutor-led
discussions and group discussions, students showed resistance towards displays of
24
enthusiasm towards tasks or activities, preferring rather to display ambivalence towards
academic work (Benwell & Stokoe, 2002). In addition, the students also displayed resistance
to academic identity, demonstrating a reluctance to employ an ‘expert’ register and by
distancing themselves from unmitigated knowledge displays (by other students) in group
discussions.
Benwell and Stokoe (2002) hold that the students’ resistance displayed towards tutor-
led discussion tasks suggests a shift in the interactional dynamics of tutorials. The displayed
resistance serves to “disrupt and challenge” (p. 441) agendas set by the tutors. However, such
resistance is not shown in an effort to display a greater orientation towards academic identity
in which students, for example, assume more control of the tutorial agenda. Instead, the
displayed resistance functions to resist academic identity. The authors note that “in the
current social climate [...] it appears that doing ‘being a student’ involves displaying
ambivalence, a lack of enthusiasm and ironic distance from ‘doing education’” (p. 446), a
trend that seems to be endorsed by popular culture in 21st century student-hood. However,
this “dumbing down culture” (p. 450) does not serve to detract from the scholarly enterprise
but serves a social need students have to orient to other kinds of identity. As the authors note,
“‘doing education’ and ‘doing social identity’ are inextricably linked” (p. 448).
Limberg (2007) notes the important role that academic talk(ing) plays in students’
socialisation into the university community. Limberg investigated academic talk in
interactions between teachers and students. He examined how such talk is conducted to
accomplish academic matters such as matters pertaining to classes and coursework, or to
address problems students might encounter at university. Limberg notes that academic talk
follows aspects typical of institutional discourse that places particular constraints on
participants’ contributions. In other words, academic talk proceeds in accordance with the
university’s institutional framework and its “allowable contributions” (p. 179). Thus,
25
academic discourse constrains what can be said and by whom it may be said. Limberg notes
that these constraints point to an asymmetrical distribution of resources where the teacher
holds the power over the discourse parameters and the student merely has to accept whatever
help or advice that is offered, whether the outcome of the interaction was fruitful or not.
Clearly the teacher’s/lecturer’s position is favoured in academic interactions by virtue of
his/her institutional position.
Mohamed and Banda (2008) examined lecturers’ academic discursive practices and
how these practices sustain unequal power relations with students at a higher education
institution in Tanzania. The authors note the concerns expressed by educators about the
unsuccessful academic literacy (writing) practices of their students. Lecturers located the
problem as a function of students’ failure to access dominant academic writing practices. The
authors, however, maintain that lecturers’ privileged knowledge of language and discursive
practices and the power relations inherent in lecturers’ discourse impacts students’
(unsuccessful) writing practices. This results in a situation where students are pitted against
lecturers who use their superior knowledge of academic literacy to undermine students. The
authors argue that this works against “facilitating students’ access to the privileged literacy
practices” of academia (p. 95).
Mohamed and Banda (2008) further note how the relationship between students and
lecturers is that of apprentice and mentor respectively and as such, is structured around
authority and power imbalance. This imbalance, they maintain, results from lecturers’
privileged access to institutional power resources, including lecturers’ status and their
knowledge of the discourse genres:
Because of his privileged access to institutional power resources, the lecturer takes the
rostrum and optimally uses his privilege of speaking including the implied privilege
vested on him by the institution, that is, the university’s orders of discourse of
26
controlling the speech of students who, in this case become silent participants. (p.
103).
Clearly, then, academic discourse favours lecturers’ voices as dominant, resulting in a
“monolingual” and “unidirectional” approach to teaching and learning where lecturers are
positioned as the “authority and the sources of knowledge” (Mohamed & Banda, 2008, p.
103). ‘Superior’ knowledge places them in a “privileged position in the sociodiscursive
relationship” (p. 101) between lecturer and student, a position which they use to construct and
sustain their dominance in their interactions with students”. The authors conclude that
lecturers’ powerful positioning and their discursive practices hinder the possibilities for
meaning-making and serve to enact, sustain and maintain relations of power and dominance,
a position clearly in opposition to student emancipation. By not inviting students into a
community of discourse, real opportunities for dialogue between lecturers and students as co-
participants in the construction of knowledge do not exist.
2.2. Institutional Academic Discourse.
Read, Archer and Leathwood (2003) note that academic culture is comprised of, and
influenced by, socially prevalent and culturally distinct discourses of knowledge,
communication and practice in higher education. These dominant discourses constrain
students’ perceptions of academia and what it means to be a university student. This further
constrains how students think, speak and write in the academy. Furthermore, students’ lack of
familiarity with academic culture and its inherent power relations may lead them to feel
alienated and isolated in higher education. Differences in status and knowledge between
lecturers and students lead to a perception of “distance” between them, and place students in
the position of “subordinate” in the academic hierarchy (Read, et al., 2003, p. 270). The
differences between students and lecturers in terms of their ability to understand and employ
the language of academia also emphasises this status differential, further contributing to the
27
perceived distance. Lecturers also have a “greater ‘authority’ to communicate in the ‘field’ of
the academy relative to the student”, such that students develop a diminished sense of
importance of their own ideas and opinions (p. 270).
Read et al. (2003) note, however, that students do not simply passively ‘receive’
discourses of academic culture but attempt to challenge the academic culture that perpetuates
“dominant constructions of the student” (p. 272). Although the dominant academic culture
might not concur with students’ own perceptions of what it means to be a student, they adopt
“the pragmatic practice of ‘adapting’ to this culture in order to achieve” thus playing the
game of academia to serve their own interests (p. 272). Other instances of resistance include
students’ utilisation of the discourse of the ‘student-as-consumer’ to challenge the dominance
of academic culture. Since the construction of education as a consumer product, students
employ their rights as consumers of educational discourse in order to reposition themselves
higher in the academic hierarchy. Students thus show acts of resistance that challenge their
“position of marginality” in academic culture (Read et al., 2003, p. 272).
Nevertheless, the authors note that although students may challenge discourses of
academic culture, they remain, to a large extent, constrained by these discourses, insofar as
universities still retain control over the types of students to which they give access and that
these students still have to ‘fit in’ with the dominant discourses of academia. Even though it
may seem to be the student’s choice to challenge these dominant discourses, this challenge is
actually “an action severely constrained by and ultimately complicit with” the ideologies they
are attempting to challenge (Read et al., 2003, p. 269).
Employing a Foucaultian analysis to explore the university as a ‘disciplinary block’,
Grant (1997) shows that higher education discourse constructs certain student subjectivities
(student subject positions). Grant claims that the process of higher education disciplines
students towards particular ends, one of these being the production of the “good or docile and
28
useful, student subject” (p. 101). The power relations inherent in the university all work to
produce students as “successfully disciplined subjects” (p. 104). As such, the student is
placed in the less powerful subject position, unable to challenge the dominant discourses that
construct ‘the student’. Students therefore become subjects who ultimately have to agree to
and abide by the rules and regulations of the more powerful institution.
Grant (1997) notes that the student is subject to the discourses of control and
regulation inherent in the university as institution. These discourses make certain ways of
being a student more likely. This enables and constrains certain ways of thinking, speaking
and acting and in so doing, brings about certain relations in the interaction between the
university and the student subject. Take, for example, the relation between lecturer and
student: In their interactions with their lecturers, students are not positioned as equal adults,
but rather as that of “child, subordinate, supplicant, initiate, rebel or devotee” (p. 103). In this
relation the lecturers hold the power to speak; power which is supported by their positioning
as experts within their discipline as well as the power afforded them through their
institutional authority (i.e. as examiners and regulators of their student subjects). The
students, on the other hand, neither hold academic authority nor institutional authority and,
thus, are positioned as silent.
Grant (1997) notes that not only are students subject to the power relations that
originate in the university, but also to the controls and regulations of their own conscience (or
self-knowledge) of what it means to be a good student. “This conscience or self knowledge is
constituted by contemporary discourses of studenthood which are dynamically produced by,
and in turn produce, the institution” (p. 104). By virtue of this conscience students work to
produce themselves as good students “resulting in the shaping of ‘appropriate’ needs and
desires, desires to know, to be wise, the desire to please, the desire to be successful” (p. 110).
29
And at graduation the institution rewards the student, publically parading the successfully
disciplined subject for all to see, and in so doing, maintaining the hegemony of the university.
However, the possibility exists for students to resist the “dominant meanings and
oppressive positions” that construct the student as docile subject (Grant, 1997, p. 111). Grant
notes that since relations of power exist “between and among acting subjects”, students can
act in ways other than is propagated in the dominant discourse of academia (p. 111).
Although classroom discourse requires that students sit quietly in class and make notes,
students show resistance by talking amongst each other rather than listening attentively to
what the lecturer is saying. However, by attending classes and taking notes, they are at the
same time accommodating the discourse. Other forms of resistance are evident as students
challenge the position of the ‘independent learner’ by forming study groups and exchanging
notes, thus becoming interdependent learners who refuse the dominant model of studying in
isolation. Grant (1997) also notes that playing the game of academia and indeed positioning
themselves as the good student to achieve their own goals (rather than actually assuming the
values of the institution) also works to resist the dominance of academic discourse. Grant
concludes that although students are not completely determined by the dominant discourse of
the university, “it is plain that they are not free” (p. 113).
2.3. Disciplinary Academic Discourse.
Parker (2001) examined how the discipline of psychology functions within, what
Lacan termed, ‘the discourse of the university’. He maintains that the driving force behind
psychology concerns how psychological knowledge functions. Psychological knowledge
functions “through the accumulation of a corpus of knowledge about human behaviour and
thinking which is presented potentially, if not actually, as if it were universal” (Parker, 2001,
p. 70). This assumed universality of psychological knowledge acts as a “battery of signifiers”
which is defined by “regularities that ensure and enforce agreement and adherence” (p. 70).
30
This set of signifiers, evidenced in psychology journals and textbooks, in exam papers and
degree certificates, defines the “nature and limits of a discursive field” (i.e. the discipline of
psychology). Moreover, it “confronts” and “addresses” each student of psychology who is
ultimately unable to master this field of signifiers (p. 70). Psychological knowledge is thus
the agent and learners, who can only operate within its predetermined, strict parameters, are
its subjects.
Parker (2001) furthermore holds that speaking to an audience as an expert from within
the field of psychology, by virtue of the address, positions the addressee as ‘other’ to the
agent, placing the audience in the “subject position upon which certain sets of attributes are
endowed and assumed” (p. 71). Parker considers the paradoxical nature of this other, stating
that the other may be considered an object who must be both perfect and lacking: Perfect in
that the object must exemplify everything about psychology and at the same time be
sufficiently other to the expert, lacking that which is to be discovered. The object is therefore
“both necessary and lacking, and the task of the psychological researcher is, at the same time,
to impress and dismiss this object” (p. 73)
Parker states that this relationship between agent and other results in the production of
the “barred subject”, the opposite of the “full-blown, self-present humanist subject” (p. 73).
He holds that, in the discourse of the university, the end goal for students and subjects of
psychology is for them to realise that, in fact, they do not know anything. All they can do is
to adopt a position within psychological knowledge whereby they become ‘agents’ and treat
‘others’ as lost objects of psychological research.
Students of psychology are treated in such a way that they become disqualified from
knowing about themselves, become embarrassed about the knowledge they may
already have about their own psychology, and if they are to stay within the orbit of
psychological knowledge they can only do so as barred subjects. (p.74).
31
In sum, the nature of academic discourse is inescapable. Its constructive effects are far
reaching and have tangible implications for the participants in academia. It constructs the
identities of its participants, thus legitimising certain ways of being and nullifying others. It
constrains the possible contributions its participants can make. In the classroom, its
hierarchical character endorses asymmetry in the interactions between participants, favouring
lecturers’ voices while stifling those of the students. Likewise, at both an institutional and
disciplinary level, the socially dominant discourses of academia function to produce students
as impotent subjects unable to challenge the status quo of what it means to be a student.
Considering this, it is no surprise that students resist academic identity, for it is this very
identity that works against facilitating their emancipation and keeps them enslaved. Nor is it
surprising that they orient to a transmission model of teaching and learning and are reluctant
to participate in the co-construction of knowledge. We may consider the roles of teachers and
students to have changed in recent years but the enslaving nature of academic discourse tells
a different story. As Duff (2010, p. 176) notes “the way newcomers and their histories and
aspirations are viewed and by how they are positioned – by themselves, by others and by
their institutions – as capable (or incapable), as worthy, legitimate, showing potential for
fuller participation or membership (or not) as insiders (or outsiders)” has important
implications for how students navigate their socialisation into academic discourse.
3. The Research Problem
The impetus for this research is clear: Academia is changing at a rate not seen before.
The information age and its technological advances have produced a new-generation student
with needs different from those of students in the past. If higher education is to meet its
students’ needs, it is pertinent to ask how learners undertaking higher education today
negotiate their identities and position themselves in relation to academia, its role players and
its practices. Considering the hierarchical, and hence, constraining nature of academic
32
discourse, is facilitating students’ emancipation truly of concern for higher education
institutions? Are students afforded the space and opportunities needed to navigate their
studies in a meaningful way? Given that student have to navigate the paradox that positions
them as enslaved masters, how do students interface with academic discourse? How does the
paradox affect the development of their identities as students? What are the manifestations of
the paradox as evidenced by the way student’s talk about their socialisation? Do they comply
with the expected norms and traditions of academia and take up the subject positions or
‘ways of being’ that academia makes available to them? Or do they somehow resist the
confines of the academy and inhabit other positions that in some way challenge its
dominance? How does their agency play out in their navigation of academic discourse?
Despite the centrality of such issues for students undertaking higher education, research
concerning the development of students’ identities has not garnered the attention it deserves
(Duff, 2010). The focus of this study was therefore aimed at exploring how, in light of the
paradoxical nature of the socialisation process, students construct their identities as students.
4. Rationale for the Research
Kiguwa and Canham (2010) note that emancipatory social change within the context
of education requires a critical reflective engagement in the learning process and necessitates
from both teacher and student a “personal investment in particular identities and subject
positioning that are continually challenged and interrogated” (p. 64). To facilitate such
change, subject positions traditionally held by teachers and students, as well as static models
of knowledge and power in higher education, need to be “challenged, revisited and
reconstituted to accommodate more egalitarian positions and meanings that are, in turn
conducive to education transformation” (Kiguwa & Canham, 2010, p. 67). These authors note
that “emancipation through learning” becomes possible by reconstructing the role of the
learner from passive to active. In so doing, the opportunity to re-examine the “dialectical
33
relationship between knowledge and agency” is possible (Kiguwa and Canham, 2010, p. 67).
However, although such sentiments are noble in theory, it is obvious that questions remain as
to their implementation in real-life academia.
34
Chapter 3: Method
1. Discourse Analysis: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations
Discourse analysis is not simply a methodological alternative to traditional
methodologies in social psychological research. As Wood and Kroger (2000) note, it is an
alternative perspective on social life that is informed by particular assumptions about
language or discourse (conceptual elements) and includes ways of working with discourse as
data (methodological elements). The conceptual and methodological elements of discourse
analysis stem from the onto-epistemological assumptions of its governing paradigm, social
constructionism. The ontology of such research recognises the world not as an entity ‘out
there’ but as socially or discursively constructed through language. Discourse analysis
therefore assumes a relativist epistemology in contrast to the assumptions of realism that
underpin positivist research. The emphasis is therefore on “the multiple and relative rather
than the singular reality-reflecting status” of the world (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 13).
Since, from a discursive perspective, people are seen to actively employ particular
constructions of the world in order to accomplish social actions, this conceptual shift in focus
from what people are talking about to what they are doing with their talk requires parallel
shifts in the methodological features associated with discourse research (Potter & Wetherell,
1987). The organising principle guiding the analysis of data in discourse analytic research
advocates a definitive focus on “discourse - and, in particular, the ways in which discourse is
oriented to actions within settings, the way representations are constructed and oriented to
action” (Wiggins & Potter, 2008, p. 74). In other words, it is important to consider not only
the content of people’s talk but also what their talk is designed to achieve. This presupposes
the importance of considering both the immediate interactive context as well as the broader,
ideological context in which accounts are produced in an analysis of discourse.
35
Given the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of discourse analysis
highlighted above, in this study, participants’ narratives and identity constructions were
interpreted and analysed as socially organised action, systematically and deliberately
employed to address their interactional and inferential concerns in both the local context of
their production (the interview) as well as in the broader, social or discursive context (Edley,
2001).
1.1. A Discursive Psychology Approach to Investigating Identity.
This research drew upon the theoretical assumptions and methodological features of a
field of research within the broader tradition of discourse analysis, known as discursive
psychology. Discursive psychology, also referred to as Discourse Analysis in Social
Psychology or DASP, (cf. Wood & Kroger, 2000) reflects a critique of the assumptions of
traditional psychology and its consequent methods used for investigation. In short, Wooffitt
(2005, p. 113) notes that discursive psychology is “nothing less than a thorough reworking of
the subject matter of psychology” and involves the application of the discursive perspective
to the subject matter of social psychology. It is premised by the understanding that people are
social and relational and that psychology is “a domain of practice rather than abstract
contemplation” (Wiggins & Potter, 2008, p. 73).
In the discipline of psychology, identity has been examined from numerous
perspectives. Traditional social psychological models view the self as an entity which can be
definitively described, a self that “has one true nature or set of characteristics waiting to be
discovered” (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 95). Trait theory, for example posits the self as
consisting of various traits, attributes and abilities that culminate in the self as ‘a personality’
(Potter & Wetherell, 1987). From this perspective, identity equates to the sum of peoples’
personality traits and dispositions. Variations may exist across these traits and dispositions
and they may change over time as people develop (Baron & Byrne, 1997), but, in essence,
36
our identities and sense of self derive from, and are determined by, our personality traits. In a
similar vein, Role Theory maintains that people acquire a sense of identity by the roles they
have to play within society (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Being a mother, a husband, a student
– these are all seen as social roles people play. People need to learn how to inhabit these roles
and how to act appropriately in them and it is in occupying these social positions that people
acquire a sense of self. From this perspective, identity is not derived from certain personality
characteristics but rather is learned from the roles people assume. Even though a person may
assume a variety of roles, nonetheless, each role exists as a definitive entity (Potter &
Wetherell, 1987).
Discourse analysts approach the concept of identity differently from traditional social
psychological conceptions. A discursive psychology approach, as with most other forms of
discourse analytic research, requires a shift in focus to how psychological ‘things’ – such as
identity –are brought into existence through people’s talk. From this perspective, identities do
not exist independently to their construction: It is through language or discourse that people
are able to construct certain identities or selves (White & Lowenthal, 2011). Establishing an
identity is thus a discursive accomplishment (Edley, 2001; Wood & Kroger, 2000). It is a
complicated, ongoing process that is dynamic in nature and is interactionally achieved
between social actors (Jacoby & Gonzales, 1991).
From this language approach to the self, the focus is not on discovering the true nature
of the self, but rather on how the self is talked about or theorised in peoples’ discourse (Potter
& Wetherell, 1987). As Taylor (2007, p. 5) notes, “talk is understood as the site in which
identity is instantiated and negotiated so the ‘identity work’ of speakers is investigated
through the analysis of their talk”. Identity is constructed in discourse “as individuals lay
claim to various recognisable social or shared identities” (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2004, p. 237).
It follows, then, that there is not one self to be discovered but rather “a multitude of selves”
37
found in different kinds of linguistic practices available to speakers (Potter & Wetherell,
1987, p. 102). By implication, identity is therefore also not stable or consistent but rather
“fleeting, incoherent and fragmented” and continually subject to renegotiation (Edley, 2001,
p. 195). (A full exposition of the analytic techniques employed to examine the identity
constructions of participants in this study follows in Section 3.7).
2. Design
This study employed a multiple case study design in order to explore the identity
constructions of a sample of master’s degree students at a South African university. In
keeping with the principles of qualitative research, this design was employed to develop an
in-depth understanding of how – and why – students construct their identities. This design
was utilised so as to elicit ‘thick’ descriptions from participants regarding their experiences of
their academic socialisation, from undergraduate through to postgraduate study. To this end,
the study documented participants’ narratives of their learning journeys and of how they
negotiated their participation in academic discourse. The analysis and interpretation of the
data was guided by the theoretical orientation discussed in Chapter 2.
3. Ten Stages in the Analysis of Discourse
Potter and Wetherell’s (1987) key text on discourse analysis, ‘Discourse and social
psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour’ was used as an organising framework to guide
the execution of the various phases of this research. The authors provide an exposition of ten
stages in the discourse analytic research process. They note that these stages “are not clear
sequential steps but phases which merge together in an order which may vary considerably”
(p. 160). As with other qualitative work, discourse analysis is inherently iterative in nature.
This therefore required a continual movement back and forth between the theory, the data and
the analysis as the research progressed.
38
3.1. Stage 1: Research Questions.
This study set out to examine the following research question: How do master’s
degree students construct their identities as students? Uncovering these self-constructions in
the context of their academic discourse socialisation necessitated examining how students
interface with academic discourse (i.e. their lecturers, fellow students, coursework material
etc.). Considering the discourse perspective adopted, this study aimed not only to describe
“the sheer range of self-images” available in students’ talk but also to examine how these
images were used and to what end(s) (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 110).
3.2. Stage 2: Sample selection.
Purposive sampling was employed to recruit participants for this study. The sample
consisted of five master’s degree students. The sample was drawn from a group of first year
master’s degree students, all of whom had completed the coursework component of their
degree and were in the process of writing their dissertations. The rationale for the selection of
senior students for the sample was that senior students have had more exposure to the process
of academic socialisation than, for example, first year undergraduate students. Having spent
between five and six years at university in pursuit of tertiary education, these students had
been exposed to a variety of learning environments, pedagogical strategies and coursework
activities, and thus, could likely speak with more authority than junior students could about
their experiences of being students. The sample consisted of three male and two female
participants, all in their mid-twenties. They had all completed their undergraduate and
honour’s degrees (at different universities) and were enrolled for a full time coursework
master’s degree in psychology.
Although a sample of five participants could be considered relatively small, Wood
and Kroger (2000, p. 80) note that the intensive nature of discourse analysis usually means
that the sample size “in the traditional sense of number of participants, be relatively limited”.
39
Sample sizes in discourse analytic work are generally smaller than those employed in
quantitative or other qualitative approaches. As these authors note, “the critical issue
concerns the size of the sample of discourse (rather than the number of people) to be
analysed” (p. 80). Similarly, Potter and Wetherell (1987) maintain that, since the focus of
discourse analytic research is on language use rather than on the people producing the
language and, considering that a large range of linguistic patterns is likely to emanate from
relatively few people, smaller sample sizes are generally adequate as they provide as much
information as hundreds of responses as is characteristic of sample sizes in positivist
research. Wood and Kroger (2000) maintain that variability in the discourse of interest
influences the sample size: If considerable variability exists across participants’ discourse it
might be necessary to supplement the data, whereas if the text shows that variability in the
discourse overlaps sufficiently among participants, the sample size can be relatively small.
Given these considerations, in this study the sample size was provisionally limited to five
participants. As the analysis progressed, a sufficient degree of data saturation was evidenced
by an adequate overlap in participants’ discourse, thus indicating no need to further
supplement the sample.
This study could consider several biographical variables (including gender, ethnicity,
religion etc.) as part of the sample characteristics, all of which could be seen to influence the
conversation in one way or another. However, as Wood and Kroger (2000) note, the issue to
consider is whether or not these variables are of concern for the participants themselves. They
maintain that “context is only to be used in formal analysis if it is relevant to participants” (p.
128). In other words, if participants orient to a particular extrinsic contextual feature -
including information pertaining to their specific circumstances, the roles they inhabit or their
particular biographies - it becomes “procedurally consequential” and is then included as part
of the analysis (p. 128). In this study, the focus was not on participants’ biographical details
40
and how these relate to the construction of their identities as students. What was important,
however, was that participants in this study could be “ethnographically categorised” as
students at the same institutional hierarchical level (Jacoby & Gonzales, 1991, p. 154). In
other words, all participants were senior students nearing the completion of their postgraduate
degrees and thus, were at similar points in their academic discourse socialisation.
After obtaining ethical approval for the study, potential participants were approached
and informed about the research and the aims of the study. Participation was voluntary and
consent to participate was obtained prior to the interviews. To ensure anonymity pseudonyms
have been assigned to participants.
3.3. Stage 3: Data Collection.
Debates exist in the literature on discourse analysis with respect to the use of data that
occurs naturally (i.e. as part of the everyday activities of the research participants) as opposed
to using researcher-instigated data (such as data obtained from interviews with participants).
Potter and Wetherell (1987) maintain that the data used in discourse analysis often comprises
records or documents of participant interaction, rather than materials generated from the
researcher’s own interactions with participants. The advantage of this, they hold, is the
absence of the researcher’s influence on the data. Wood and Kroger (2000) similarly note the
concern for using data that is generated by the researcher, also citing the influence that the
researcher might have on the discourse. Wooffitt (2005), on the other hand, notes that
perhaps the most commonly used data sources in discourse analysis research are accounts of
recordings from informal interviews between researchers and respondents. Phillips and Hardy
(2002, p. 71) address this dilemma by noting that “which texts occur naturally in any
particular situation depends on the research question” and that “texts that best constitute data
depend on what the researcher is studying”. They maintain that if the research focuses on
how individuals construct themselves “then interviews may be less problematic because the
41
way in which individuals construct themselves in an interview with a researcher may be
similar to how they construct themselves in other arenas of talk” (p. 72).
The data used for analysis in this study was generated from individual interviews with
the participants. Access to the data was restricted to the researcher and the researcher’s
supervisors. Data will be stored electronically for five years from completion of the study.
3.4. Stage 4: The Interviews.
In order to examine how students construct their identities, the interview questions
were designed to explore a range of issues central to being a student. Pilot interviews were
conducted to ensure that the focus of the interview questions was sufficient to address the
research question at hand. The open-ended interview questions aimed to elicit information
about students’ experiences of their learning journeys, from undergraduate study through to
postgraduate level, as well as about their ideas and beliefs concerning what it means to ‘be a
student’. This included asking participants to reflect on their role(s) as students and the
role(s) of their lecturers in the learning process. They were also requested to reflect on
lecturers’ pedagogical strategies and how these strategies facilitated or inhibited their
learning. Other questions required students to detail how they approached and experienced
formal study activities such as producing assignments and studying for exams, as well as
attending classes, workshops and practical work-experience placements. Participants were
also asked about their interactions with their lecturers. This included interactions that were
formal in nature (such as classroom interactions and interactions with their supervisors) as
well as informal interactions (such as casual chats with lecturers during coffee breaks).
Semi-structured, in-depth interviews allowed respondents the opportunity to provide
detailed responses to questions about their learning journeys. An informal tone was adopted
in the interviews such that a colloquial and easy way of conversing about participants’
42
learning journeys was established between the researcher and participants. The interviews
lasted between 40 minutes and one hour.
3.5. Stage 5: Transcription.
The interviews were digitally recorded for transcription purposes. The Jeffersonian
transcription system is often associated with discourse analytic research, specifically
conversation analytic work, where the investigation is often microanalytic in nature and
focuses on particular interactional practices (Wood & Kroger, 2000). This system is
necessarily detailed and is designed to capture properties of talk such as the design of specific
utterances or turn taking sequences. This system is further tailored to account for the features
of talk/text itself such as volume, emphasis and sound stretching (Wooffitt, 2005). The
transcription of verbal data for other forms of discourse analysis is not always as detailed as
those found in conversation analytic work, since, as Wood and Kroger (2000) note, it may not
always be suitable for other forms of analyses.
The focus of this research was to examine the discursive accounting practices of
students at a macro level, rather than at the fine-grained, micro level as is the case in
conversation analysis. The macroanalytic nature of this research did not necessitate a focus
on aspects of talk such as turn-taking, overlaps in utterances, pause-length or rise or fall in
intonation. A standard “orthographic approach” (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 83) was therefore
employed in the transcription of the data. This approach uses conventional spelling and
verbal descriptions for other signs (e.g., “laughs”). The transcripts included the contributions
to the conversation made by both researcher and participants, including the interview
questions which were included as the context for participants’ responses during analysis.
3.6. Stage 6: Coding.
In order to break the discourse down into manageable chunks, the first step in the
coding of the data involved selecting all references to the criteria of interest from the
43
transcriptions and grouping these together into categories (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Potter
and Wetherell further note that the categories used in the coding of the data are “crucially
related to the research questions of interest” (p. 167). Considering that the central purpose of
this study was to explore the identity constructions of students, and that the interview
questions were designed to elicit information about participants’ socialisation experiences at
undergraduate and postgraduate level, the most logical way of organising the data in
preparation for analysis was to code relevant text into two main categories, namely ‘The
undergraduate student’ and ‘The postgraduate student’. Four additional categories were
generated from the text and were used to code other data relevant to participants’
socialisation experiences. These categories were labelled ‘The undergraduate lecturer’, ‘The
postgraduate lecturer’, ‘Undergraduate study’ and ‘Postgraduate study’. Using the cut-and-
paste function in a word processor, data were coded by grouping together relevant words,
phrases and sentences into their respective categories. Coding was done as inclusively as
possible. Borderline instances were included (rather than excluded) in the categories. When
an utterance/utterances reflected more than one category, it was included as part of all the
categories it represented. Once populated, these categories served as the starting point for the
analyses proper.
Data segments concerning participants’ experiences of being university students at
both undergraduate and postgraduate level, as well as their ideas and beliefs about what it
means to be a student, were selected for coding. Data were further sorted according to topic.
Topics included: The roles participants assumed in their studies as well as the roles of their
lecturers; formal and informal interactions with other role players in academia (including
classmates, lecturers and academic and practical work-experience placement supervisors);
academic activities in which participants engaged throughout the learning process (including
44
attending classes, producing assignments, studying for exams and attending work-experience
placements) and difficulties participants experienced in the learning process.
After coding was complete, the data were reorganised around the analytic concepts
discussed in Section 3.3.7 below.
3.7. Stage 7: Data Analysis.
Wood and Kroger (2000) note the distinction between top-down and bottom-up
analytical procedures when doing discourse analysis. Top-down approaches to studying
language consider language use in relation to broader social forces, as is the case in this
research. Wooffitt (2005) notes that top-down approaches are concerned with notions of
power, ideology, discourses, texts and subject positions. Whereas bottom-up approaches
study the structural and functional features of discourse and the organisation of specific
interactional activities (Wooffitt, 2005), top-down approaches employ analytical concepts
that are quite broad in comparison to the micoranalytic concepts used in bottom-up
approaches (Wood and Kroger, 2000).
This study employed a bottom-up analytic approach to examining identity which
Edley (2001) describes as critical discursive psychology. This approach, which combines
poststructuralism and interactionism, treats identity both as “products of specific discourses”
and as a resource for accomplishing social actions in talk-in-interaction (Jørgensen &
Phillips, 2002, p. 110). It recognises that people construct events of the world using
repertoires provided for us by history. Edley (2001, p. 190) notes that any “language culture”
likely offers a number of different ways of talking about (or constructing) an object or event.
As such, people actively select from available repertories to construct different accounts of
the world. However, not all ways of speaking about an event or the world are equal. Since
discourse constrains what we can say and what we cannot, some ways of speaking about an
object or event may then become more dominant than other ways of speaking about the
45
object or event. Some ways of understanding and interpreting the world therefore become
culturally dominant to other ways of understanding and interpreting the world. Edley (2001,
p. 190) notes that these dominant understandings then “assume the status of facts, taken for
granted as true or accurate descriptions of the world”. The way in which people experience
themselves and their worlds is therefore “a by-product of particular ideological or discursive
regimes” (p. 210). People are both produced by, and subjected to, hegemonic understandings
of the world and thus, are positioned as particular kinds of subjects. In other words, who we
are always stands in relation to these cultural narratives or discourses (Wood & Kroger,
2000). One of the central aims of critical discursive psychology is to examine these
hegemonic understandings and “to enquire about whose interests are best served by different
discursive formulations” (Edley, 2001, p. 190). In so doing, it offers analysts the opportunity
to examine “not only how identities are produced on and for particular occasions, but also
how history or culture both impinge upon and are transformed by those performances” (p.
190).
Edley (2001) notes three analytic concepts central to a critical discursive psychology
approach. The first concept in this analytical framework is the ‘interpretive repertoire’.
Interpretive repertoires are “recurrently used systems of terms” (Wooffitt, 2005, p. 35) and
provide speakers with particular and coherent ways of interpreting or talking about objects
and events in the world. Wetherell and Potter (1992, p. 90) define this concept as “broadly
discernible clusters of terms, descriptions and figures of speech often assembled around
metaphors or vivid images”. Interpretive repertoires are identified through people’s use of “a
lexicon or register of terms and metaphors, drawn upon to characterise and evaluate actions
and events” (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 138). They are resources that are flexibly drawn on
in conversations that “are usually made up of a patchwork of ‘quotations’ from various
46
interpretive repertories” (Edley, 2001, p. 199). As such, this concept can be thought of as the
“discursive terrain that makes up a particular topic or issue” (Edley, 2001, p. 198).
Interpretive repertoires are recognisable when different people make the same kinds
of arguments or talk about an object or event in a similar manner (Edley, 2001). Similarities
in the way people talk about an object or event therefore indicate that they are drawing on a
particular interpretive repertoire to construct the object or event. (The concept ‘interpretive
repertoire’, although closely related to the concept ‘discourse’, differs from the latter with
regards to its emphasis on agency of speakers in their deployment of language (Edley, 2001):
Edley notes the term ‘discourse’ is often used to reflect a more Foucaultian orientation in
which discourses are seen to construct entire institutions and subjectify people. In contrast,
Jørgensen and Phillips, (2002, p. 107) note that interpretive repertoires signify that people are
not only subject to the constructive effects of discourses but that they can also use discourses
“as flexible resources” for accomplishing social actions. Drawing on this concept allowed for
an examination of the “interpretive procedures” participants used in the construction of their
accounts as well as the ends to which these procedures are employed (Potter & Wetherell,
1987, p. 146).
The second concept employed in the analysis of the data, namely ‘subject positions’,
refers to “identities made relevant by specific ways of talking” (Edley, 2001, p. 210).
Originally formulated by Rom Harré (see Harré & van Langenhove, 1991), subject positions
refers to “the constitution of speakers and hearers in particular ways through discursive
practices” (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 100). In other words, when people talk about a person,
object or event, they are positioning themselves and their identities in relation to that person,
object or event. In so doing they also position that person, object or event in particular ways.
Identities are thus negotiated into existence by actively taking up particular subject positions
within different discourses. Positioning plays an integral part in how people construct
47
accounts of their identities (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). This analytical concept therefore
provides a means of exploring how people position themselves in conversation. As such this
concept offers the opportunity to discern particular identities or selves which are presented in
particular ways – and, presumably for different reasons - in conversation.
Edley (2001) notes that in order to identify the subject positions that speakers take up
in their talk, the analyst needs to remain aware of “who is implied by a particular discourse or
interpretive repertoire” and what a given statement (or set of statements) says about the
speaker (p. 210). To examine the subject positions participants inhabited in the text, the
categories generated from the data were scrutinised for what Potter and Wetherell (1987, p.
111) refer to as “narrative characters” produced in participants’ discourse. In other words,
participants’ constructions were inspected for the production of different (student) narrative
characters. For example, a description of how a participant would only start working on an
important assignment the day before it was due produces a certain kind of narrative character.
This narrative character takes up a particular subject position by virtue of this description,
that is, as a student who is not too concerned with rigorous preparation when it comes to
producing important assignments. On the other hand, a description of how a participant
would spend several months painstakingly working to perfect an assignment indicates a
different positioning, one that is indicative of a student who arguably values thorough
preparation when producing assignments more than the student in the first example. By
examining these narrative characters it was possible to explore the range of subject positions
produced in participants’ text.
The third analytic concept in this critical discursive framework is what Billig et al.
(1988) refers to as ‘ideological dilemmas’. Similar to interpretive repertoires, ideological
dilemmas are language resources that people can draw on in their interactions and everyday
sense making. The concept refers to the often dilemmatic nature inherent in the beliefs,
48
values and practices – or the “lived ideologies” – of a given culture or society (Edley, 2001,
p. 203). Lived ideologies can be said to represent the “common sense” or way of life of a
culture or society (p. 203). However, the common sense of a given culture or society consists
of many conflicting and competing arguments and ideas. As such, society’s common sense is
often characterised by “inconsistency, fragmentation and contradiction” (p. 203). These
dilemmas are often revealed by the oscillations between contradictory subject positions
evident in a speaker’s account or by the contrary or competing themes or arguments evident
in contemporary common sense understandings of a social object (Edley, 2001).
The contradictions associated with competing understandings of an object often pose
a dilemma for speakers: Taking up two different subject positions, which espouse two
different, competing understandings of an object, results in incoherence or inconsistency in
people’s narratives. To examine how people deal with these inconsistencies, the notion of
‘face-work’ was employed as part of the analysis. Face-work refers to the actions people
undertake to make what they are saying and doing consistent with their ‘face’ (Goffman,
1967). By attending to issues of ‘face’, people ‘work’ these contradictory positions so as to
take up and ‘perform’ a coherent identity. In this study, face-work is used to refer to how
participants managed or performed the identity/identities constructed in their texts in order to
address or resolve the disparate aspects of ‘being a student’. In other words, in order to
resolve the dilemmas associated with inhabiting potentially contradictory subject positions,
participants engaged in ‘face-work’ so as to enable them to present a coherent identity in their
accounts of being a student.
Utilising a critical discursive psychology framework was well suited for investigating
how participants constructed their identities. Scrutinising the interpretive procedures
employed by participants offered the opportunity to reveal the “range of linguistic resources”
available for students to draw on in constructing an identity as a student (Edley, 2001, p.
49
198). Uncovering the subject positions participants took up in their discourse allowed for an
examination of how students negotiate their participation in academic discourse and thus,
how their identity and agency ‘plays out’ in their academic socialisation. Unpacking the
ideological influences present in participants’ constructions allowed for an exploration of the
cultural resources that society in general, and the academic community in particular, makes
available to students, and by implication, allowed for an examination of how the operation of
power innate to academic discourse affects students’ socialisation. Furthermore, employing
the notion of face-work provided an opportunity to examine how speakers managed the
discrepancies associated with the competing subject positions in their texts.
Data were scrutinised for patterns in the data either in terms of similarity in their
structure or content or differences (or variability) in what they were saying (Marshall &
Raabe, 1993). These constructions were then subjected to further analyses in order to explore
their functional orientation and whether or not they served the same purpose or function for
all participants.
3.8. Stage 8: Validation.
Validation in discourse research involves warranting the research by providing
justifications and grounds for analytic claims and the findings of the study (Wood & Kroger,
2000). In positivist research the criteria reliability and validity are used as measures to assess
the scientific robustness of a study. However, in discourse analysis a different set of criteria is
used for evaluation. These criteria are discussed in Chapter 6 after the presentation of the
analytic results.
3.9. Stage 9: The Report.
The report of the findings of this study is presented in the form of a master’s degree
dissertation.
50
3.10. Stage 10: Application.
The final stage in the discourse analytic process involves the practical application of
the research’s findings. This research contributes to a body of critical knowledge concerning
the transformation of teaching and learning practices in higher education. As such, the
theoretical contribution made by this study can be used to inform educational practice as to
how we should accommodate students in the process of their academic discourse
socialisation.
Before presenting the results of the analysis, the ethical considerations pertaining to
this study are considered.
4. Ethical Considerations
Although the topic of this research was not of such a nature that participation in this
study could cause psychological harm, respect for the participants and their stories of their
learning journeys was an important consideration, both at the time of data collection as well
as during analysis and presentation of the results. Participants were asked to provide an
account of their experiences of being students and all were in their final year of formal
tuition. Some participants had already registered with a professional board which would,
upon completion of their dissertations, allow them to practice as professional psychologists in
whichever area of the discipline they were specialising. Asking them to provide an account of
their study journeys meant that they had to articulate a meaningful story of the many years
they had spent studying which, presumably, laid the foundation for what they would be doing
for the rest of their lives. Whilst relating a particular incident one participant became tearful,
so although the enquiry was not focussed on exploring potentially psychologically harmful
issues, relating an account of what it means to be a student indeed was an emotional
experience for this participant. Furthermore, the different identities that participants presented
in their narratives are precisely that: Their identities – ways in which they speak about
51
themselves and their worlds. As analysts we have to uphold the ethical imperative of respect
for participant autonomy. Care was therefore taken to treat participants and their texts with
the respect they deserve, throughout the different phases of this research.
52
Chapter 4: Analytic Results
The presentation of the analytic results details the interpretive repertoires evident in
participants’ texts. The uptake of the subject positions associated with each repertoire is
explored together with the ideological dilemmas emanating from participants’ accounts of
being a student. Consideration is given to the face-work participants engaged in in response
to the ideological dilemmas evident in their accounts.
Three interpretive repertoires were identified in participants’ texts. A behavioural
repertoire was used to construct the behaviours in which participants engaged in as students.
A competence repertoire showed how participants positioned their identities and the identities
of other role players in academia in relation to academic knowledge or expertise. A power
repertoire evidenced the subject positions made available by the political structures within the
academy as well as by the import of the economic discourse of consumerism.
1. The Behavioural Repertoire
The behavioural repertoire was used to construct the roles and characteristics of
students and lecturers. By talking about the activities and behaviours they engaged in as
students, such as attending classes, preparing assignments and socialising, participants could
construct the roles they, as students, assumed, as well as the roles their lecturers played in the
learning process. This repertoire therefore enabled participants to demonstrate the typical
behaviours they engaged in as students. The subject positions evident in their texts shed light
on the lived ideologies of student-hood. In other words, the ways in which they positioned
themselves and their identities (through their talk of their behaviour as students) revealed the
different ways of being a student that are available for inhabitation. Consider the following
extracts (where ‘I’ is the interviewer; ‘S’ is the student respondent; […] denotes deliberately
omitted material; and [text] represents clarificatory information):
53
Extract 1: (Vincent)
1 I: What was expected of you, do you feel, at undergraduate level, versus your studies in
2 honours and masters, what do you feel was your role as a student in your undergraduate
3 studies?
4 S: Erm, I think for the undergraduate, um, it’s a lot easier, erm, well obviously compared to
5 now, erm, I think what, basically what I expected of myself was just to attend the classes,
6 ‘cause, erm, just, just being there, shaved off half my studying time, basically, so just
7 being there and having someone tell me or explain what’s going on and you know, sitting
8 there, listening, going through stuff made studying a lot easier, erm compared to the
9 other students, or a lot of them, who didn’t go to class often, erm, spent double the
10 amount of hours studying for a test, whereas I just literally had to go through the notes
11 the night before, erm, so in that respect I think what was expected was just to be there, to
12 show up, erm, I mean, your parents are paying for it, why not go, I think that was the
13 main, and the learning would also be a lot quicker and a lot easier if you were there,
14 that’s erm, it’s not really, it gets complicated when you don’t know what’s going on, you
15 have to figure it out for yourself, basically, erm, when compared to [university name],
16 you have to figure it out for yourself almost, you don’t have classmates, you don’t
17 have erm, you know, people to help you figure out the problem or the assignment
18 information or whatever […]
19 What did you expect the role of the lecturer to be [at honour’s level]?
20 Erm, I didn’t really have much expectations, I never really had a lot of contact with my
21 lecturers, in a sense that it was never really necessary to approach them , and try and
22 figure out, erm, or try and solve my problem that I have with the topic or subject or
23 whatever, it was never that necessary, I either figured it out myself, or asked a friend if I
24 could, erm, you know, that was the MO [modus operandi] almost […] I knew they were
25 there as a resource if I had any problems, erm but the notes we got, I got, the
26 information, the, you know, the instructions we got were so clearly set out that you
27 couldn’t really go wrong, you just had to follow the instructions, basically […]
With regards to the behaviours he engaged in as a student, Vincent’s text indicated the
presence of two subject positions. As is evident in this extract, on the one hand he constructs
the identity of a confident agent, capable of managing and directing his own academic
socialisation: He notes how he conscientiously attended classes because doing so “made the
learning a lot quicker and a lot easier” (Line 13) when it came to studying for tests or exams.
He demonstrated an agency in the manner in which he organised his learning environment
(i.e. by conscientiously attending class in order to develop a deeper understanding of the
54
subject content). He thus constructs himself as a resourceful student, noting that it was not
really necessary to approach his lecturers to help him solve coursework-related problems
because he either solved the problem himself or with a friend or classmate (Lines 21 – 23).
This subject position is therefore representative of an independent student who took
responsibility for his own learning. The second subject position evident in his text, however,
suggests that being a student is not quite as simple and straightforward as he initially
maintained: He remarks that learning becomes difficult when “you have to figure it out for
yourself” (Lines 14 – 15). This subject position is suggestive of a different kind of student
who is less independent than the one highlighted above. This student relies more on his
lecturers for instruction and guidance than on his own agency to navigate his studies. This
student sees learning as “complicated” (Line 14), and is dependent on lecturers to “explain
what’s going on” (Line 7). Such a position is therefore demonstrative of a student who is less
confident in his ability to manage his own learning. This constructs the lecturers as the
primary agents in the learning process whereas students are positioned more passively and as
dependent on the lecturers to help manage and direct their learning.
These two subject positions are contradictory in nature: Taking up the position of
independent, self-directed student who can manage his own studies conflicts with the position
of a student who is sees learning as complicated and who is dependent on his lecturers to
explain the work. The conflicting nature of these subject positions suggests that Vincent is
drawing on two conflicting common-sense understandings of what it means to be a student.
Moreover, he oscillates between these opposing positions in his text: In his first turn, he
initially constructs the position of the confident, self-directed student who conscientiously
attended classes in order to manage his own learning. In Line 7 he positions himself as the
dependent student who needed “someone [to] tell [him] or explain what’s going on”. In Lines
10 to 11 he reorients to the independent student position, indicating that he “literally had to
55
go through the notes the night before” whereas the other students who did not attend class
had to “spend double the amount of hours studying for a test”. He reverts back to the
dependent student position in Lines 14 to 18 by constructing learning as difficult when “you
don’t know what’s going on [and] you have to figure it out for yourself” (Lines 14 – 15). His
account of how it was never really that necessary to contact his lecturers in his final turn
suggests the reuptake of the independent student subject position. Oscillating between these
contradictory subject positions suggests the presence of an ideological dilemma (Edley,
2001). This is sustained by the participant’s discourse which suggests that a dilemma exists
between taking up a position as a confident, self-directed student and a position as an
uncertain, dependent student: In this extract, the dilemma is illustrated by the manner in
which Vincent switches from active voice to passive voice: Initially he notes that “what I
expected of myself” (Line 5) was just to attend the classes. Using the active voice attributes
the responsibility and agency demonstrated by his class attendance to the speaker. However,
in Line 11 he reformulates this expectation to the passive voice, noting that “what was
expected was just to be there”. This utterance constructs the responsibility for his class
attendance as a function of an undefined other’s expectations and not his own. He thus shifts
responsibility for his dependent, uncertain positioning to the undefined ‘other’ who expected
him just to be there.
Vincent integrated or assimilated the contradictory positions of the self-directed,
independent student and the dependent student by working the ‘face’ of the strategic student.
It is true that going to class and having a lecturer explain the work can help to reduce the time
needed to prepare for a test. It is also true, however, that independent and self-directed
learning is complicated since this requires that students manage their own learning without
depending on lecturers to explain the work to them. In order to deal with these conflicting
positions and to reconcile being a dependent student with being an independent student, he
56
worked the ‘face’ of the strategist. As a strategic student, his dependence on instruction is not
rooted in, for example, a lack of knowledge or incompetence. Instead, it is based on the
notion that going to class saves time when preparing for tests and exams, a perfectly logical
thing to do. Working the ‘face’ of the strategic student thus enabled him to assimilate these
contradictory lived ideologies of student-hood.
Michael’s employ of the behavioural repertoire also evidenced the presence of two
subject positions. Consider the following extract:
Extract 2: (Michael)
1 I: If I had to ask you what does it mean to you to be a good or a successful student how
2 would you, what in your mind is a good or successful student?
3 S: Ok, erm, for me there’s a difference between a good student and a successful student,
4 erm, I was never the good student, erm, especially at undergrad level, made a lot of
5 mistakes, erm, student life and so on, so I wouldn’t say that the lecturers at undergrad
6 level would call me a good student, I was never a good student.
7 I: Are you saying you were a bad student, or-
8 S: Erm, yes, no I, I wasn’t the worst student.
9 I: Why do you say you weren’t good?
10 S: Ok, good student, no, I didn’t put the time and effort into my studies erm, that I should
11 have, erm, I failed a couple of subjects, erm, if I, I wouldn’t say it’s a matter of
12 dedication, it’s more a matter of being in a comfort zone and ya, enjoying life, seeing
13 where it takes you, that kind of idea, philosophy, ya it’s definitely got to do with, uh, the,
14 your youthfulness and yes, so and there were other students that was the same age as I
15 was or even younger, that were good students so I wouldn’t necessarily say that a young
16 student equals a bad student, and once again I don’t see, it’s more on a continuum, the
17 bad and good students, it’s not two different categories, yep, good and bad, but I lean
18 towards the bad student.
19 I: And what is the successful student?
20 S: Ya, that’s, that’s where I, that’s where I wanted to explain the whole idea of being at a
21 master’s level, it’s not necessarily successful out of a career perspective but it’s
22 successfully, I think not a lot of people do have master’s degree when you look at the
23 stats, erm successful student is, I have to be, that’s where I differentiate between a good
57
24 student and a successful student, I was never a good student but I made it to my, to a
25 master’s level and I believe I’ll finish my dissertation, not too long from now [laughs]
26 so that’s what makes me a successful student […]
As demonstrated in his first turn, Michael constructs a less studious subject position
than was the case with Vincent in the first extract. Michael notes that he was “never the good
student” (Line 4) and that he “made a lot of mistakes” (Lines 4 -5) and “failed a couple of
subjects” (Line 11). His account makes salient another lived ideology which dictates that
being a student is not purely about the academic endeavour. As he remarks in Line 5, being a
student also means partaking in the “student life” (which, as is clear in Lines 18 to 20, refers
to the social aspects of student-hood). He therefore positions his identity as somewhat of a
socialite who overindulged in the social aspects of student life at the expense of his academic
development. In Lines 17 to 18 he constructs this position as one that “lean[s] towards the
bad student”. (This also implies that a student who does not overindulge in the student life
‘leans towards’ being a good student.) As becomes evident in his second turn, Michael’s
discourse also demonstrated the uptake of another subject position: He notes that failing the
subjects was not due to a lack of “dedication” (Line 12) on his part, but rather “a matter of
being in a comfort zone […] seeing where life takes you, that kind of idea, philosophy”
(Lines 11 – 12). As such, he constructs his “bad” behaviour as a function of a life-philosophy
related to being in a comfort zone and not as a function of being undedicated. He is thus able
to position himself as a student who, despite having failed a few subjects and living perhaps a
little too much of the ‘student life’, was nonetheless dedicated to his studies.
Michael also oscillated between the contradictory subject positions evident in his text:
In this extract for example, in his first turn, by noting that he made many mistakes, he takes
up the position of not a good student. In Lines 12 to 14 he orients to a less-bad position by
denying that a lack of motivation resulted in him failing a few subjects. In Line 18 he
explicitly reorients to the position of the “bad” student. In his final turn he again orients to a
58
less-bad position, noting that he believed himself to be a successful student who made it to
master’s level. Oscillating between these contradictory positions is suggestive of a dilemma:
Euphemising his bad behaviour (by remarking that it was not a “matter of dedication” but
more of “being in a comfort zone”) suggests that he does not want to position himself as an
undedicated student. However, the euphemism also serves to argue for (versus against) his
unscholarly behaviour by ‘downgrading’ the depravity of this behaviour from ‘undedicated’
to ‘being in a comfort zone’. These conflicting arguments suggest a dilemma between taking
up the position of the dedicated student who diligently attends to his studies and the position
of the student in a comfort zone who indulges in the student life.
The ‘face’ that Michael ‘worked’ as a resolution to these contradictory ways of being
a student is that of the successful student: In his first turn he distinguishes between a good
student and a successful student. In doing so, he replaces the notion of the good student (a
position he notes he never occupied) with that of the successful student. In other words, he is
able to distance himself from his formulation of his identity as not a good student. Moreover,
distinguishing between a good student and a successful student also serves to rescind the
notion of the “bad” student: If he were not the good student who attended to his studies, the
inference can be made that he was a “bad” student. However, a “bad” student is arguably not
a successful student. By constructing himself as successful he therefore nullifies a self-
positioning as a “bad” student. In this way he is able to perform the ‘face’ of the successful
student and assimilate the contrary positions of the undedicated socialite and the dedicated
student.
Denise’s employ of the behavioural repertoire is illustrated in the following extract:
Extract 3: (Denise)
1 I: Now if I asked you to erm, reflect on how you learnt, undergrad versus postgrad, what
2 did you feel that your role was, what was expected of you as a student at undergrad level,
59
3 what did you have to do in order to successfully navigate your studies, versus, was there
4 any difference in your postgraduate studies?
5 S: Well to be honest, [university name] undergrad is not that difficult, so at undergrad level,
6 I didn’t feel that pressured, the assignments you just did them on the last day, sent them
7 in, and for exams, when it came to exams I always studied a lot, I’ve always gone the
8 extra mile, so I found for me, just having a good grasp of the material to the point where
9 I could almost recite it, was what I expected of myself, not necessarily what they
10 expected of me, but what I expected of myself, erm, but to be honest, I would study, but I
11 wouldn’t study to the point where you know, I wouldn’t give up my life for my studying,
12 the last month before exams I would study, erm, when it comes to honours, to be honest,
13 it was pretty much the same except, about three months before the exams I started
14 working, ‘cause I realised this is a higher field, exams are an extra hour, you have to
15 know a lot more, and not only that but you have to take the knowledge and reinterpret
16 it in your own words, criticise the knowledge and recons-, reconstruct the work in
17 your own words, you can’t just, black and white, there, there done [inaudible] you can’t
18 just take the black and white from the text book and transfer it to the exam […]
19 I: What does it mean to be a good or successful student?
20 S: In my own view, its good marks in your exams, that for me has always been my
21 benchmark, but to be honest, I don’t think that’s actually the best idea, that’s just my
22 narrow view of the world, at the end of the day I think so many people don’t work as
23 hard as they should and they always think ,oh I’ll just pass, 50 [percent] is fine, but at the
24 end of the day I do believe that you should get as much as you can, you should get the
25 highest mark you are capable of, it shouldn’t just be, oh, well I’m lazy, let’s just get
26 50, it should be, I’m gonna show you how much of this knowledge I can absorb and I can
27 apply, I’m gonna show you my abilities, that for me has always worked, it’s a good, I test
28 well, but overall, I do think my views are a bit limited, I do think that it actually boils
29 down to how much you can take from the course and apply in the real world, because
30 we’re not gonna be students for ever, what are we gonna do with this information, we
31 need to apply it in the workplace, so I think at the end of the day, that is what counts,
32 when you can go into the workplace, you have an idea of what you’re doing, and you
33 haven’t just buried yourself in a book, ‘cause you actually need practical experience, you
34 need something to sell, you can’t say, well, I’ve read this book, the company’s gonna go,
35 well, so? […]
Denise constructs the identity of a hardworking scholar in her account, noting that she
“always studied a lot” and had “always gone the extra mile” (Lines 7 - 8). She remarks that
she “didn’t feel that pressured” (Line 6), thus positioning her identity as a student who
worked hard and was able to deal with the pressures of higher education. She relates that she
also earned good grades and spent months preparing for exams. The way in which she
60
organised and took control of her learning was to study “to the point where [she] could
almost recite” (Lines 8 – 9) the work. In this way she was able to perform well in the exams
and could use “good marks” (Line 20) as a “benchmark” (Line 21) against which to measure
her performance and success. She therefore constructs the position of a student in control of
her learning environment and who managed her learning through discipline and structure.
Denise’s text also suggested the presence of another subject position: She notes how, at
honours level, it was no longer sufficient to “take the black and white from the text book and
transfer it to the exam” (Line 18). In other words, her method of taking control of her
learning environment was no longer sufficient to navigate the pressures of postgraduate study
(where it is expected that students show a deeper understanding of the work than to merely
regurgitate the contents of the prescribed book in the examination). The way in which she
navigated her learning environment therefore became increasingly difficult to maintain the
further she progressed. She notes how, at honour’s level, she would have to spend three
months preparing for exams in comparison to one month at undergraduate level (Line 13).
This, together with the dependence she displayed on her lecturers for instruction, guidance
and support (see Extract 8 in this regard) reflects the position of a student much less in
control of her studies than she initially maintained in the extract above.
The dilemma Denise faced therefore centred around being in control versus not being
in control. The dilemma reveals itself in the contradictions evident in her text: First, she notes
that when it came to her honour’s studies, “it was pretty much the same [as undergraduate
study] except, about three months before the exams I started working”. This contradicts her
description of her undergraduate studies in which she maintained that she “didn’t give up
[her] life for [her] studying” (Line 11) and that she would (only) study one month prior to
exam commencement. Starting preparations three months prior to the exams, therefore,
suggests that honour’s study was not all that similar to undergraduate study. Furthermore, as
61
noted, at undergraduate level she took control of her learning by memorising and reciting the
work in the test or exam. This is arguably a passive contribution. Being in control of her
studies therefore depended on a structured and non-demanding environment. However, when
the environment became less structured and more demanding (at honour’s and master’s level)
and required an active contribution on her part she could no longer take control of her
learning simply by regurgitating the contents of the prescribed book in the exam and thus,
was no longer in control.
The dilemma is also evident in her final turn: In Line 20 she notes that being a
successful student means earning high marks in the exams. In Line 22, however, she negates
this position, remarking that this might not be the best idea and that perhaps it just reflects her
“narrow view of the world”. However, as she indicated, this is the standard by which she
measured her own success. Then, in Line 24, she oscillates back to the position which argues
for (versus against) the value of earning high marks. She then contradicts herself again in
Line 28, noting that this view is “a bit limited” and that what really counts is “how much you
can take from the course and apply in the real world” (Line 29). The inconsistencies in the
ways she positions herself and the conflicting arguments made with regards to these opposing
subject positions suggests that these two opposing ideologies are dilemmatic for Denise.
The ‘face’ Denise worked in order to reconcile being in control versus not being in
control was the ‘face’ of the developing student: Obtaining the highest marks possible was
used as a benchmark by which Denise could measure or evaluate her academic success (Lines
24 – 25). She notes that she “tests well” (Lines 27 – 28), that is, she earned high marks as a
student. She defends this benchmark, stating that “so many people [students] don’t work as
hard as they should” (Lines 22 – 23) and are happy just to earn 50%. She remarks that the
attitude students should hold towards their studies is one of: “I’m gonna show you how much
of this knowledge I can absorb and I can apply, I’m gonna show you my abilities, that for me
62
has always worked” (Lines 26 – 27). This positions her benchmark (i.e. obtaining the highest
marks possible) not as merely reciting from the text book as she initially maintained. This
benchmark is not just about absorbing knowledge but is constructed as a reflection of how
much knowledge she can “apply in the real world” (Line 29) as well as a demonstration of
her “abilities” (Line 27). In other words, she reformulates her initial position (which equated
high marks with reciting black and white from the textbook) to include the practical
application of knowledge and a demonstration of her abilities. She continues, however,
noting that this (revised) position may still be “a bit limited” (Line 28). In other words, she
does not rescind her initial position (even the revised one) but she acknowledges its
limitations. As such she demonstrates the ‘face’ of a student who can acknowledge her
limited views and thus positions herself as a student who is in the process of developing (i.e.
from the limited position of “burying yourself in a book” to applying knowledge and gaining
“practical experience” [Line 33]).
Harry and Julie’s accounts of being a student differ from the other participants. Unlike
the other participants, the subject positions demonstrated in their texts do not concern being
in control (of their studies) versus not being in control. Rather, Harry’s narrative revolved
around his search for passion and meaning in his studies whereas Julie’s text centred on
navigating the power relations in academia.
Extract 4: (Harry)
1 I: And what would you have liked your lecturers to have done differently at undergraduate
2 level?
3 S: Well, I think everyone knows [university’s name] reputation of lecturers being too busy
4 with other stuff to actually make enough time for people […] that’s what it was like, its’
5 like fifteen minutes and people just want to get you out the office so that they can do
6 other things, but, no, ok, the, some lecturers were, were, they were very good because
7 they made the time for you, it’s like they want to, they wanted other people to know
8 about this subject, you know, they wanted to share maybe their passion or something like
9 that, it’s like, I absolutely love Karl Marx, so I’m gonna make time for you, ‘cause I
63
10 think you’ll love this too, the other people, I think they just like, this is the money that
11 I’m making and I’ll just get my wages at the end of the month, I think maybe their
12 motivation, you know, I think time was obviously the difficult thing there, I’m sure there
13 are a lot of lectures who maybe did have that passion but because of the time constraints,
14 like they couldn’t just take it a bit slower and tell us a bit more, you know, most of the
15 time you’re going through the chapters, chapters, chapters and I mean, I, if you miss one
16 week, the week before you’re on like page one hundred of the text book and uh, the next
17 week you’ll already be on page two fifty, ‘cause they would just breeze through the stuff,
18 you know, erm, so I think it’s the university also at the higher level that makes them
19 push through the stuff so quickly, they can’t make the time to actually just have a general
20 discussion about it, you know, and I think that’s important, you see where people are,
21 and say ok, maybe let me go back explain it, ok cool everyone is on the same level, let’s
22 move forward, some lectures like, I don’t care where you are, that’s your problem, I just
23 wanna finish this stuff […] honours was very nice because you know, it was more
24 reading, it wasn’t just reading one book, you’re actually reading articles, most of the
25 courses was just based on reading different articles and then that’s also applied to the real
26 world, it’s not just theory, its actual, this study took place this is what they found and
27 they link it to theory, so now I really got involved in reading that and I’d read an article
28 and I’d check a reference and like, oh, I’m gonna read that as well, so it became more of
29 a passion for me, it wasn’t just a degree anymore, I wasn’t worried about the degree or
30 anything, it’s just I was really interested in the stuff I was reading about. So I think that
31 was the main difference, after honours, the degree still didn’t really mean anything to me,
32 like oh now I know about people, I still think it was my own experience, interacting with
33 people like on a daily basis, speaking to people like on a daily basis and speaking to
34 people about issues in their lives, that’s, that I actually like started thinking of myself as a
35 counsellor or a psychologist, but the degrees, I won’t say that they made me confident in,
36 oh now I’m a psychologist, now I’m qualified.
In his account of being a student, Harry demonstrated the need to be acknowledged as
a legitimate or ‘franchised’ student of psychology. However, as is evident in Extract 4, he
was instead relegated to a position in which he was denied a legitimate agency as a student in
his studies. This is apparent in Lines 3 to 6 in his remark about how lecturers did not make
time for their students and how they “just wanted to get you out of the office so that they can
do other things”. He notes how lecturers would “just breeze through” (Line 17) subject
content without taking the time to engage students in discussions to assess their
understanding of the work. Later in the interview (see Extract 19, Lines 8 - 9) he comments
that studying was about “just going to class into the lecture, sit there, make sure you
understand what the book says, then use that book to write the exam”. As such, he notes that
64
studying felt as though it was a “package” (Extract 19, Line 1) on offer to students who had
little choice but to accept the package on offer. In contrast, as is evident in the extract above
in his description of his honour’s degree studies from Line 23 onwards, he also demonstrated
the desire for legitimate engagement with his studies: He states that, at honours level “it
wasn’t just reading one book, you’re actually reading articles” that are applicable to “the real
world, it’s not just theory” (Lines 24 – 26). He notes how he “really got involved” in what he
was reading and that studying “became more of a passion” and was not just about “a degree
anymore” (Lines 27 – 29). This position is demonstrative of a student who is allowed
legitimate access to his studies rather than being positioned as a student who had to engage
with an inauthentic process.
The dilemma between being positioned as a disenfranchised student and a franchised
student is visible in this extract in the manner in which he talks about his lecturers: He
oscillates between blaming the lecturers and offering excuses on their behalf for being
negated to the position in which he simply had to accept his disenfranchisement: Initially, in
Lines 3 to 5, he criticises the lecturers for not making time for their students. He then
moderates this initial positioning, noting that there were some lecturers who did want to share
their passion for their subjects. He reverts back to a more critical positioning in Line 10,
maintaining that some lecturers were only interested in their salaries and not in their students’
development. He again reorients to a less critical positioning of the lecturers in Line 12,
stating that the time constraints imposed by the university prevented lecturers from engaging
sufficiently with their students. Besides oscillating between these positions, the dilemma is
also expressed in his explicit formulation of the situation he found himself in, that is, as a
disenfranchised student whose lecturers were disinterested in his understanding of the work,
as problematic in Line 22.
65
The ‘face’ Harry performed in order to integrate these discrepant positions is that of
the passionate student: His account of student-hood concerned how he broke free from the
confines of an inauthentic learning process, going beyond the boundaries of the university
and his coursework to find passion in his studies. He remarks that he was no longer “worried
about the degree” (Line 29) or simply concerned with passing the exams. As he indicates in
Lines 32 to 34, he was able to find passion in his studies through his interactions and
experiences with people, no longer relying on obtaining a degree to fulfil his need for being a
franchised student. Later in the interview he notes that “I’ll be making a career out of this…
it’s not just something to get the piece of paper [the degree certificate]…it is discovering the
passion and then, you know, you can see that, oh, this degree is gonna help me to, to take my
passion and just make it a career”. The manner in which he found and maintained his passion
and, thus, became a fully-fledged, legitimate student was to transgress the academic borders
of psychology.
Extract 5: (Julie)
1 S: […] Research psychology is something that I was actually quite against in honours year,
2 because my supervisor who was supervising my mini dissertation told me that I couldn’t
3 write, he told me that some people can do it and some people can’t and he said, its ok,
4 you can’t do it, it’s fine, so I was really put off research [laughing] […] and I explored
5 master’s again for this year and one of the things that came up was this course […] it’s
6 just then I decided to go for it because I really didn’t wanna be bogged down by that,
7 that one statement that my lecturer made that year and I just thought agg, I’m just
8 gonna defy everything you said, and then I, I liked the, I liked the, the selection process
9 and I, I thought that will be nice and yip that’s where I am now, so it’s never really been
10 something, research, something that I knew I’d go into, ya.
11 I: I like that, defy what the lecturer did, can we, can we just talk a little bit about that,
12 this guy says to you, or woman, whatever it was, that you that you can’t write, how did
13 you understand that?
14 S: I took it as my style of writing, I, that’s how I understood it, that it’s not research, [I’m]
15 strong in research.
16 I: And now, if you think back what do you think about it?
66
17 S: I feel like I actually, I could write back then, but I suppose, I was in honours, I didn’t
18 wanna question anybody, so I just took it as is, now I think my writing is still good but
19 I’m in a different context completely, so you know, when I compared myself to students
20 there, when I compared myself to students here, it’s completely different, than, I grew
21 last year even though I didn’t write so much, and I think I’ve I stopped caring a lot what
22 people would say about things like that because everybody says I write well even though,
23 ya […]
24 I: So now, if somebody says that to you again, what are you gonna say? Let’s say I’m your
25 supervisor and I say this to you, what are you gonna say?
26 S: Oh my word, erm, if you told me that I can’t write, ok then I would say, I’m in this
27 course for a reason, and somebody must have liked something that I did, so why don’t
28 you tell me what I can work on then, if that’s your opinion, but that’s not mine at this
29 point in time, it’s not my opinion that I can’t write, that’s your opinion, so what do you
30 think I should do and then I’ll decide if I can, if I’ll take your advice or not, yeah.
Julie constructs the position of a defiant student in her account of student-hood. She
notes that, during her honour’s studies, her supervisor had told her that she could not write
and that, as a result, she was “really put off research” (Line 4). However, despite this, she
decided to “defy” (Line 8) what her supervisor had said and apply for a research master’s
degree. Her defiance is also evident in the negation of her supervisor’s sentiments in her
remark in Line 17 when she notes, “I feel like I actually, I could write back then”. The defiant
student subject position is also clear in Lines 26 to 30: She notes that, if, during her master’s
studies, she had been told that she could not write she would have dismissed it as the other
person’s opinion. Her defiance is further evident in her statement that she would decide
whether she would take this person’s advice or not. In other words, she would not simply
accept the (hypothetical) lecturer’s advice but decide for herself whether to take the advice or
not. Besides demonstrating a defiant position, Julie’s text also suggested the presence of
another subject position: In Lines 17 to 18 she remarks that “I was in honour’s, I didn’t
wanna question anybody, so I just took it as is”. This position is representative of a student
who, rather than question (or defy) her lecturers, accepted the status quo by not questioning
67
anybody. Such a position thus reflects an accepting student, and stands in contrast to her self-
positioning as a defiant student.
Julie’s text evidenced oscillations between these contrary subject positions. In this
extract, for example, in Line 4, she demonstrates the uptake of the accepting student in her
utterance, “so I was really put off research”: This utterance suggests an acceptance of her
supervisor’s sentiments that she could not write. In the latter part of her first turn she
demonstrates the defiant student position by noting that she applied for a research master’s
degree despite what her supervisor had said. In Lines 17 to 18 she also initially demonstrates
the defiant student subject position (“I feel like I actually, I could write back then”). In her
statement, “I was in honours, I didn’t wanna question anybody, so I just took it as it is”, she
demonstrates the uptake of the accepting student position. She then reorients to the defiant
position, noting that “now I think my writing is still good” (Line 18) and that she has
“stopped caring a lot what people would say about things like that” (Lines 21 – 22).
Julie’s discourse suggests that the contrary positions of the defiant student and the
accepting student evident in her text presented her with a dilemma: On the one hand,
constructing the identity of a student who defied her lecturer implies a disinclination to accept
the lecturer’s sentiments. This is illustrated in her utterance that she “didn’t want to be
bogged down” (Line 6) by what her supervisor had said. Being bogged down implies that
accepting her supervisor’s sentiments, that is, that she could not write, was problematic for
her. However, in Lines 21 to 22 she notes that she stopped caring what people say because
everybody says she writes well enough. In other words, even though she maintains that she
did not care what people thought (which reflects the defiant student position), her discourse
suggests that she based her opinion about here writing competency on the fact that
“everybody says [she] write[s] well enough” (which reflects the accepting student position).
68
In order to resolve the dilemma associated with these conflicting subject positions, the
‘face’ that Julie worked was that of the capable student. In her final turn she notes that it is
not her opinion that she could not write. By noting that she would decide whether or not to
accept the advice of the hypothetical lecturer, she constructs the identity of a student who is
capable of assessing both her own work as well as the advice offered by a lecturer. By
‘performing’ the face of the capable student she is justified both in her defiance as well as her
acceptance, and thus, is able to integrate these opposing subject positions.
2. The Competence Repertoire
Whereas the behavioural repertoire illuminated the different behaviours participants
engaged in as students, a competence repertoire was used to refer to matters pertaining to
their proficiency in executing academic tasks. The competence repertoire revealed how
participants positioned their identities with respect to academic/disciplinary competence. In
specific, participants used this repertoire to construct their identities in terms of the expert-
novice dichotomy. Vincent, Michael and Denise’s texts evidenced the uptake of both the
expert and novice subject positions. Harry’s discourse showed only the uptake of the novice
position whereas Julie’s text indicated a self-positioning as an expert.
Extract 6: (Vincent)
1 I: And would you say you learnt more or less that way [through practical experience] than
2 you did grafting [studying] from the book?
3 S: I think more, you learn more that way, in the sense that when you actually have to do the
4 thematic analysis, or apply it, it’s almost, that’s the thing you focus on, that takes all your
5 cognitive resources and the, the facts almost come secondary.
6 I: Secondary?
7 S: Or almost automatic in that way, you know, that’s not what you’re trying to remember,
8 you’re not trying to remember the facts, you’re trying to apply this so the facts almost
9 come automatically, ‘cause you have learnt it, you have read it, erm so sort of focussing
10 on the more abstract part of it makes the other part seem more automatic, or more easier
69
11 to remember, and then obviously doing something yourself makes it a lot easier to
12 remember than just reading about it.
13 I: What was the role that your lecturers at postgraduate assumed? Sum up for me what were
14 the different roles that different lecturers assumed.
15 S: For my supervisor for example, erm, she I’m not sure, I think the first time I submitted
16 my first draft she probably thought I had absolutely no idea of what I was talking about,
17 no clue what so ever, I think that’s the impression I gave her, and I think from there on-
18 I: Ok, why do you say that?
19 S: I’m not sure, erm, the, let’s say, the feedback that I got, it wasn’t, wasn’t, I don’t wanna-
20 I: I don’t know who your supervisor is so you can talk.
21 S: Erm, it wasn’t helping, it was almost, challenging is the best word I can think of , erm,
22 she, she was very easy to, to point out where I was wrong, or what she didn’t understand,
23 which forced me to, to go and read more on the topic to better explain myself so that she
24 could understand me, erm I think that was the biggest problem, most of the time I didn’t
25 have the knowledge to properly convey my message, I think, so what I did right on there,
26 I think a, a lot of time, was either misinterpret it or she just thought ‘no’, just completely
27 wrong, erm, and then the feedback I got sort of forced me to go back, you know, read
28 what she suggested, you know, re-read this chapter to better understand it for myself so
29 that I can better give her that message.
In the first half of the extract Vincent demonstrates the uptake of an expert position.
In his first two turns he notes that the application of theoretical knowledge in a practical
context is more conducive to learning than simply studying the theory from a textbook. The
application of knowledge requires a more advanced set of skills than trying to memorise
theory and facts from a book (Line 12). This is representative of a competent student who is
able to focus on the “abstract” (Line 10) whilst “the facts almost come secondary” (Line 5).
In other words, the focus is not on “trying to remember the facts” (Line 8). Rather, he notes,
when engaging in the application of theoretical knowledge, the facts almost come
“automatically” (Line 7). He therefore constructs the identity of an expert student who is able
to apply knowledge rather than simply learn theory by heart. As is evident from this extract,
Vincent also demonstrates a subject position that is not quite as proficient as the one
70
suggested by his first two turns: He notes that, upon submitting the first draft of his research
proposal to his supervisor, she “probably thought [he] had absolutely no idea of what [he]
was talking about” (Line 16). He adds that “most of the time I didn’t have the knowledge to
properly convey my message” (Lines 24 – 25). As such, the lecturer is constructed as the
expert. In contrast, his own subject position is demonstrative of a novice position and
contrasts with the formulation of his identity as an expert in his first two turns.
Vincent’s discourse suggests the presence of a dilemma with regards to the conflicting
positions of expert and novice: In this extract, for example, in describing the difficulties he
experienced with his proposal he oscillates between locating the problem as a function of
himself and as a function of his supervisor. In Line 16 he locates the problem with his
supervisor in his statement that “she probably thought I had no idea what I was talking
about”. In Line 22, he notes that his supervisor was quick to “point out where [he] was wrong
or what she didn’t understand”. The first part of this utterance locates the problem with him
(where he was wrong) whereas the second part locates the problem as a function of the
supervisor (who didn’t understand the message he was trying to convey). A similar pattern is
evident in Line 23 when he notes that his supervisor forced him to “read more on the topic to
better explain [himself] so that she could understand [him]”. In this utterance, he initially
locates the problem with himself, that is, the problem is constructed as a function of him not
being able to clearly communicate his ideas. In the latter half of the utterance the problem is
constructed as a function of his supervisor not being able to understand the message he was
trying to convey. He owns the problem again in Lines 24 to 25, noting that “most of the time
I didn’t have the knowledge to properly convey my message, I think” (although ‘most of the
time’ and ‘I think’ serve to hedge his construction of his lack of knowledge and, thus,
demonstrates a reluctance to constructing his identity as novice). His to and fro oscillations
71
between owning the problem himself and locating it with his supervisor suggest the presence
of an ideological dilemma with regards to the uptake of the positions of expert and novice.
In order to resolve the conflicts associated with the disparate positions of expert and
novice, the face-work that is demonstrated in Vincent’s discourse is targeted at framing the
problems he encountered in the learning process not as a function of his own novice-ness but
rather as arising from some other factor unrelated to academic competence or expertise (or
lack thereof). In this extract, Vincent frames the problem as a function of poor
communication: In Lines 24 – 25 he notes that he didn’t have the knowledge “to properly
convey [his] message”. In Line 29, he also notes how he needed to better convey his
message. This frames the problem as a function of poor communication and not as a lack of
competence with regards to subject knowledge. In locating the problem as a function of poor
communication he might be perceived as a poor communicator but not necessarily a novice
student. [(Similarly, in Extract 1, the reason he offers for his class attendance is not
incompetence or lack of expertise. Instead, he cites the reason for his class attendance as
minimising the time needed to spend preparing for tests or exams and because “it gets
complicated…[when] you have to figure it out for yourself” (Lines 14 – 15).]
The competence repertoire also enabled Michael to construct his identity in terms of
the expert-novice frame:
Extract 7: (Michael)
1 S: Getting to masters level, that was totally different from both the undergrad and honours,
2 ya […] at this master’s level, they did not necessarily stipulate exactly what they
3 expected, erm they gave us a few pointers, for instance, ya your proposal has to be
4 finished by the end of the year, but the role was very, we could shape our own roles
5 throughout the whole year, or that’s how I experienced it, I could, I could actually create
6 my own role within the MA program, whereas the other, undergrad and honours level,
7 they created, they told you what role you were going to play […] [At master’s level] I
8 was given the opportunity to go into whatever direction I wanted to go in and the great
9 thing about this is that the guidance was always there, I was given the freedom but
10 whenever I doubted my own beliefs, or whereto from here, then my supervisor would be
72
11 there for me, I could go into my own direction, as soon as I’m stuck like I just put up my
12 hand and my supervisor would be there to take my hand and actually guide me from
13 there, and in that guiding process they didn’t guide it into their own direction necessarily
14 but they gave me the freedom to actually take it, or give me the, they would rather show
15 me the different possibilities and let me decide which possible, or which one I would
16 choose rather than, erm, giving me one answer and me following that, yes.
Michael notes that at undergraduate and honour’s level students had to follow the
prescriptions of their lecturers, whereas, as master’s students, they could “create” (Line 5)
and manage their own roles as students. While the lecturers prescribed what and how students
had to learn at undergraduate level, at postgraduate level they only provided students with “a
few pointers” (Line 3) regarding how to approach their studies. In other words, he constructs
the expert master’s student as one who takes charge of his/her own studies. He positions
himself as an expert student who could shape his own role as a student. However, his text
also evidences the presence of a novice subject position: He notes that, whenever he had a
problem all he needed to do was put up his hand and his supervisor would “take [his] hand
and actually guide [him] from there” (Line 12). This serves to construct his identity as a
novice whilst his supervisor is positioned as the expert who can guide him whenever he
doubted his own beliefs. This contrasts with his self-positioning as the expert master’s
student who was able to navigate his studies without being told what to do.
In Lines 13 to 16 Michael differentiates between being prescribed what to do (as he
indicates was the case at undergraduate level) and being guided by his supervisor when he
needed help at postgraduate level. In doing so, he deconstructs the position of ‘expert’ and
‘novice’: He notes that at postgraduate level being guided did not involve having to do
precisely as he was told. This would position him as a novice. Rather, he relates that his
supervisor would “show [him] the different possibilities” and let him decide which course of
action to follow (Lines 15 – 16). Making the distinction between having to unquestioningly
follow prescriptions and being able to choose amongst different possibilities positions him in
73
(more of) an expert than a novice position. Making this distinction suggests a disinclination
to constructing his identity as a master’s student who needed the prescriptions of his lecturers
to navigate his studies. At the same time, his dependence on his supervisor to take his hand
and guide him suggests a reluctance to inhabiting the positon of expert: His discourse thus
suggests that whether to inhabit the position of the expert, who is able to direct and manage
his own learning or the position of novice, who relies on the lecturer to guide students is
dilemmatic for the speaker.
He addresses the dilemma through his deconstruction of the position of expert and
novice. In other words, his deconstruction serves as the face-work in order to integrate the
disparate positions of expert and novice: He positions himself as more expert than novice by
virtue of the fact that he did not follow the prescriptions of his supervisor but rather actively
chose between possibilities and, thus, “created” his own role as a student. This serves to
construct him as an agent who could choose between possibilities rather than as a novice
student without agency who simply followed the prescriptions of his lecturers. In doing so, he
could assimilate the novice position (as a student who was guided by his supervisor) with the
expert position (the ability to direct and manage his own learning).
The competence repertoire also allowed Denise to construct her identity in terms of
the subject positions of expert and novice. Consider the following extract:
Extract 8: (Denise)
1 I: So are you saying [the master’s degree lecturers] played a facilitative role?
2 S: Yes, they did, also a very active role in the sense that they were mostly the ones who
3 guided the workshops, or whether them or external people who came in, that was more of
4 an active role for me because they actually showed us step by step, ok this is what you
5 need to do, it wasn’t just facilitating your process, it was sort of taking you by the hand
6 and leading you, for the workshops but for the rest of the time, it was a facilitative role,
7 yes, and I also found, erm sort of like, [lecturer’s name]’s proposal development project,
8 that sort of helped us even though we hated it [laughs] cause it sort of forced us to figure
74
9 things out, while he didn’t play a very supportive role in the sense that you couldn’t just
10 say [lecturer’s name], we’re stuck, help us, the fact that in that sense we also had to
11 figure it out for ourselves, ok, this is what he expects of us, we need to do this, we need
12 to sit down and figure it out for ourselves, that also activated the other side of learning,
13 which is self-learning, not just being guided but also having to think for yourself, so in a
14 sense, this year was very dynamic, there was a lot of different types of leaning going on.
15 I: And if there is an answer to this, what would you say was more effective in terms of your
16 learning, sort of being guided saying, step A B or C or in terms of the way [the proposal
17 development lecturer] approached something, where you had to, how did you say, self-
18 solve the problem?
19 S: To be honest, I’ve enjoyed the workshops, the practical side and all which does involve
20 being guided, the first, the first implementation of it, but in the long term I do think self-
21 learning is a more helpful tool to have because when it came to the placements , when it
22 comes to my job next year, I’m not gonna have someone saying let’s do a workshop, I
23 don’t know how to write a report for the client, they’re not gonna do that, you’re going to
24 be expected to self-learn, and so I think you need both, but if I had to choose one I would
25 actually say, even though I enjoy it less, self-learning, for me, is very crucial.
In Line 2 Denise explicitly positions her lecturers as having played an “active role” in
her studies. She notes that the role they assumed was not “just facilitating your process” (Line
5); rather, it involved “taking you by the hand and leading you”. In other words, lecturers
would show students “step by step what you needed to do” (Lines 4 – 5). Attributing this role
to the lecturers positions them as the experts and her own identity as a novice student in need
of “guidance” (Line 13) and “support” (Line 9). Denise’s account also demonstrated an
expert self-positioning: In her account of the proposal development class she relates that, as
master’s students, they had to “self-learn” (Line 13) and “figure things out” (Lines 8 – 9) on
their own without guidance from the lecturer. This constructs the position of the expert
student. In her final turn, she notes that self-learning is a “more helpful tool to have” (Line
21) than being guided. She draws on the notion that, in the workplace, one is expected to self-
learn. By indicating that “self- learning, for [her], is very crucial” (Line 25) she takes up the
expert position as a self-learning student.
75
As with Vincent and Michael, Denise’s text suggests the presence of a dilemma with
regards to the uptake of the positions of expert and novice. In Line 8 she notes that the
students “hated” the proposal development class because “it forced [students] to figure things
out” without the help of the lecturer. Her use of the words ‘hated’ and ‘forced’ indicate a
resistance to taking up the role of expert self-learner. Similarly, inhabiting the role of novice
also seems to be problematic: She initially notes that the role her lecturers played at master’s
level was a “facilitative” one (Line 1). In Line 5 she maintains that this role was not only
facilitative in nature but that it involved guiding students step by step. She hedges this notion
in Line 6, stating that it was only in the presentation of workshops that lecturers would guide
students step by step and that “for the rest of the time it was a facilitative role” that they had
played (Line 6). In the latter half of the extract her account focuses on relating that master’s
study was not about “just being guided but also having to think for yourself” (Line 13). In
other words, after initially positioning the lecturers as the experts in the learning process her
account works to limit the frequency with which lecturers guided students step by step and to
amplify the expertise she displayed at postgraduate level. This suggests that inhabiting the
position of a novice student, who is dependent upon the guidance of her lecturers, is also
dilemmatic for her.
Denise did not demonstrate a move towards resolving the disparate positions of expert
and novice. Rather, she maintained both positions, thus providing a clear display of the
complex dynamic between them. Even when urged (by the interviewer’s question in Lines 15
- 18) to resolve the positions (by indicating which method of learning is more effective) she
insists on maintaining them both (Lines 19 – 25). Although she indicated that self-learning is
a “more helpful tool” and is “very crucial” for her, she did not annul her novice positioning.
Rather, she ordered the positions of novice and expert along a temporal path leading from her
76
training context to a work context, which allowed her to manage the emotional impact of the
expert position (from a position that is “hated” to a role that is “enjoyed less”).
As shown above, the competence repertoire enabled Vincent, Michael and Denise to
construct their identities in terms of both novice and expert subject positions. Harry’s
discourse, however, did not demonstrate a punctuation of his identity as an expert. The
following conversation concerns the development of the proposal for the research study
Harry planned to conduct for his master’s degree.
Extract 9: (Harry)
1 S: […] I was just lucky enough to read that one article, just to take it from a qualitative to a
2 quantitative study [laughs] and then I see ok, now this is a lot more possible, these guys
3 have already done this study, there’s no problem in, in focussing on something that they
4 kind of brushed over, let me focus on that and then it all came together, and to do the
5 proposal was actually quite easy because I was really just adding on to a study that’s
6 already been done, erm, but you know, then obviously I didn’t have much knowledge
7 about quantitative stuff and stats and all that so you know, that’s when you, I started
8 doubting this, I’m like this dyadic data analysis stuff man, I don’t know [laughs] and
9 you’re reading these articles and some professor has been writing about this for the past
10 30 years, you know, you check the references, you read the stuff you know, like agg, I
11 don’t know who am I gonna speak to, to help me […] but then like, I’d approached one
12 of the authors and told them you know how did you do this and they, they just kind of
13 just referred me to a book […] and I got hold of the book and it was explained very, not
14 easily, but after reading the book three times, [laughs] I kind of started understanding a
15 bit of it, and you know then you then I felt really confident that this is something that I
16 can do.
As is evident from this extract, Harry discourse did not indicate the explicit uptake of
an expert subject position. Rather, his discourse evidences the presence of a novice self-
positioning. In Line 1, for example, he notes that he was “just lucky enough” to have read an
article about a study similar to his own research. It is by virtue of having read the article that
“it [the proposal] all came together… [and] was actually quite easy” (Lines 4 - 5). He does
not construct himself as an expert who, by virtue of his skills and expertise, was able to
develop his own proposal. His novice position is demonstrated in Line 6, for example, when
77
he notes that he “didn’t have much knowledge about quantitative stuff and stats”. In making
the comparison between himself and “some professor [who] has been writing about this stuff
for the past 30 years” (Lines 9 – 10) he implicitly positions his identity as novice, and that of
the professor’s as expert (by virtue of the fact that the professor has 30 years of experience
and he does not).
Even though his text does not evidence the uptake of an expert subject position,
Harry’s discourse does indicate moments of awareness of the expert discourse: Rather than
demonstrating a self-positioning as an expert, his text provides a description of the process of
developing from novice to expert, a process which he constructs as resulting from hard work.
For example, in Lines 13 to 16, he notes that he had to read the book he was referred to three
times before understanding it and that after reading the book he began to feel “really
confident that this is something that [he] can do”. This utterance suggests an awareness on his
part of what constitutes expert behaviour (i.e. being confident in his ability to execute his
study) without indicating the uptake of the expert subject position.
Considering that Harry’s discourse only evidenced the uptake of a novice position
(and no expert position) no dilemma was present with regards to these disparate positions.
However, as becomes clear in the following extract, he did engage in face-work with respect
to his novice position. The conversation in the following extract centres on his experience of
his honour’s studies:
Extract 10: (Harry)
1 S: Like the only complaints that I really have about honours, is, ok, first of all, like you
2 work on these assignments and then you know it’s like a 30 page assignment that you put
3 together and then it only really counts ten percent of the year and then you go write the
4 exam and because on that day you were just a little bit tired or because at that point in
5 your life you were so stressed out that you couldn’t learn that you get 50 percent for the
6 exam, then you get 52 percent for the year, so that’s the disheartening thing is, is you
7 know you should have done better but just at that point in your life erm, a pass was
8 actually a good mark you know, so you know that you know the work but the mark
78
9 doesn’t reflect that and especially when you like apply for masters and stuff when people
10 see oh there’s a 50 something, there’s a 60, they’ll think oh, you know, they’ll make
11 assumptions about that but you know for yourself that you know a lot more than that, if I
12 can just sit with someone and talk about it and I’d always say well if I just sat down with
13 the lecturers they would see that I actually know about this stuff instead of having to
14 actually to write about it
As is demonstrated in this extract, Harry engages in face-work to counter being
positioned as a novice by the university: He notes that obtaining a mark of 50 or 60 percent
for a subject could disadvantage a student, especially when it comes to applying for entry to a
master’s program (Line 9). He maintains that such a mark might not be a true reflection of
what a student knows or is capable of but could be the result of the student being “a little bit
tired” when writing the exam (Line 4) or being “so stressed out that you couldn’t learn” (Line
5). In other words, when relating that he was confronted by the fact that he was a novice
student, that is, a student who does not meet the academic requirements for entry to a
master’s program, he engaged in face-work to address being positioned as such. Rather than
ascribing obtaining sub-standard marks to being a novice, he attributes his poor performance
to being tired or stressed. He notes that, under such circumstances “a pass was actually a
good mark” (Lines 7 – 8). The face-work is evident in his attempt at constructing a pass as a
good mark. (In Lines 12 to 14 he actually makes explicit the notion of face-work in his
description of wanting to “[sit] down with the lecturers [so that] they would see I actually
know about this stuff”.) In other words, when confronted with the possibility of being
positioned as novice by the university he engaged in face-work to mitigate his novice-ness.
Unlike the other participants, however, his face-work in the competence repertoire was not
designed to integrate the oppositional positions of expert and novice.
As was the case with Harry, Julie’s discourse did not evidence a self-positioning as
both expert and novice student. In contrast to Harry’s discourse, however, Julie’s employ of
the competence repertoire was aimed at constructing her identity as an expert (rather than as
79
novice). From her last two turns in Extract 5 it is evident that Julie takes up the position as an
expert in relation to the academic competency of writing: She makes explicit the notion that
she “could write back then [during her honour’s year in which her supervisor had criticised
her writing competency]” (Line 17). She further noted that, at the time of the interview, she
was still of the opinion that her writing was good (Line 18), a sentiment she repeats again in
Lines 28 to 29. Her account thus demonstrates the uptake of the expert (student) subject
position.
Even though her text did not indicate the presence of a novice self- positioning, there
was face-work evident with regards to her uptake of the expert position: Throughout her
interview Julie’s discourse demonstrated a disinclination to positioning herself as novice. In
Extract 5, for example, she explicitly positions herself as expert, noting that she is not of the
opinion that she cannot write and that “everybody says [she] writes well enough” (Line 22).
She notes that even if her master’s supervisor (hypothetically) told her that she could not
write, she would consider this as mere opinion. In other words, she negates the lecturer’s
sentiments to opinion rather than fact. Her face-work therefore aimed to invalidate the
expertise of the lecturer and, by implication, endorse her self-positioning as an expert.
3. The Power Repertoire
The third repertoire evident in participants’ accounts was used to frame their learning
journeys in terms of the power dynamics that operate in academic discourse. The dynamics
of this repertoire are complex as it entailed two discourses, one which was brought to bear
upon the other. It involved the employ of a political discourse and an economic discourse.
Drawing on a political discourse enabled participants to construct two positions, a
subordinate position and a dominant position. (The discourse is defined as political in that it
refers to the politics that construct the institution of academia as dominant and the student as
subordinate.) Traditionally, the student occupies the subordinate position and the institution
80
the dominant position. This makes it difficult for the student to vie for the dominant position.
In reality, students cannot control the institution because this would require an entire
redefinition of the notions of student, institution and education. They can, at best, gain power
by undermining the dominant discourse. The analysis indicated that participants undermined
the dominant discourse by bringing an economic discourse to bear upon the political
discourse. Drawing on an economic discourse allowed participants to position themselves as
consumers of education. Doing so afforded them the opportunity to challenge and undermine
the power of the academic institution and lecturers by positioning universities as service
providers and themselves as clients. This manoeuvring is not surprising given the global
context of universities in an information age in which information has become a commodity.
Note that in the case of the power repertoire (unlike in the other repertoires) participants did
not oscillate between opposing subject positions. This is because, as students, they cannot
actually occupy a position of being in control (versus their subordinate position). However,
the students’ ‘manoeuvring’ (by employing a consumerist discourse) nevertheless constituted
a form of face work. By positioning themselves as consumers they resolved the underlying
conflict between being in a subordinate position versus being in control. Consider the
following extracts:
Extract 11: (Michael)
1 I: If you reflect back on this journey that you’ve been on, what would you say was your
2 role as a student, both at undergrad and postgrad?
3 S: It’s quite different with the undergrad, the honours and the masters, so far, my roles that
4 differ from each course, I’d say starting off at my undergrad, it was expected from you to
5 be at class, to deliver whatever they demanded, and erm, it was something totally
6 different, initially we were asked to, I think it was in my first year, we asked the
7 professor, so what do, in exams, do we put down on paper? and they said, listen, later on
8 in your life you will be expected or you will be able to express or give your own
9 expressions of whatever you were taught, but at this stage, at undergrad level up until my
10 fourth year with [name of degree], right through, textbooks, that’s it.
81
11 I: And this was actually communicated to you?
12 S: Ya no no that was clearly communicated to us, and they said, you know, getting to a
13 master’s level then you will be able to give your own opinion on certain stuff but at first
14 stick to the basics, the theory, we’re gonna test you on the theory, that’s what, ya, that’s
15 your role as a student at undergrad level.
In this extract, Michael sketches a rather bleak picture of his undergraduate studies.
He notes that, as undergraduate students, they were explicitly told that they were not allowed
to give their own “expressions” (Line 9) or “opinion[s]” (Line 13) concerning subject
content. He relates that a professor had indicated that, until they reached master’s level,
students were expected to stick to the basics by learning theory from textbooks. He also
maintains that students had to deliver whatever the lecturers “demanded” (Line 5), thus
positioning the lecturers as inappropriately oppressive. His account therefore vilifies the
lecturers and the university who are constructed as authoritarian, coercive and prescriptive.
This positions him as a subordinate with little or no voice in his studies. As such, he
constructs a position devoid of agency and, thus, one that is powerless in the face academic
discourse.
The uptake of the consumer subject position is evident in the way Michael talks about
his training in statistics in the following extract:
Extract 12: Michael
1 S: I was under the impression that we would get here and they would train us to be
2 professionals or not professionals but at least would be able to do stats after leaving,
3 so we were given a couple, we attended a couple of workshops with stats, and it was
4 practical workshops, theoretical workshops, great experience, but I soon realised
5 that you, this stats can’t be taught within one or two days or a couple of workshops,
6 it’s something that I would have to take into my own hands, where I would for instance
7 erm, ok, erm I got this one textbook from the internet, it’s basically like a SPSS’s guide
8 for dummies, and I’m in the process of working though the book myself, taking it step
9 for step, they, they’ve supplied us, the, university supplied us with the workshops
10 giving us the basics but now I actually have to take that and do with it whatever I would
11 like to do, do I want to gain knowledge in stats, but I’ll have to do that on my own or by
82
12 asking people, they are freely available in the halls, or by doing stuff like taking SPSS’s
13 Guide for Dummies and working through it, ya, and it’s not always easy, I haven’t gone
14 through the whole textbook for instance, but I am in the process, ya so it’s a, but they, the
15 lecturers communicated it to us throughout the year and they communicated it to us quite
16 clearly that they will not be able within a year’s time to train us or, in everything, they
17 will only be able to supply us with the basics, so erm I think if they did not communicate
18 that to us at the beginning of the year I might, this might have been a bigger shock, ya,
19 but they communicated it clearly […]
The first thing to note in this extract is the way Michael speaks about learning.
Learning is constructed as if it is something that the lecturer or the university can ‘give to’ the
student; as if it is a linear, unidirectional exchange that occurs between a provider (of
knowledge) and a consumer (of knowledge). This is clear in his formulation of how the
lecturers “supplied” students with the basics (Lines 9 & 17) and how “the university supplied
us with the workshops giving us the basics” (Lines 9 -10). Learning is therefore constructed
as if it were a commodity or something that can be given and, hence, received or “gained”
(Line 11). Furthermore, expressing “shock” (Line 18) at the fact that students would only be
“given” the basics (Line 10) and would not be “trained to be professionals” (Line 2),
constructs the training offered by the university as not having met his expectations. This
shock is directed at the ‘service’ offered by the university and thus, suggests the employ of a
consumerist discourse. (Although Michael does not make explicit mention of a value-for-
money theme, being dissatisfied with his training at university – which is paid for – implies
dissatisfaction with what he received in return for what he paid.)
Taking up the consumer subject position enabled Michael to position himself as
sufficiently entitled to evaluate and question the students’ training in statistics. The speaker’s
uses the word “shock” to describe his reaction upon realising that the students would only be
trained in the basics of statistics. Being shocked, especially by something like the training
offered at a university, is unlikely to imply a positive surprise. Expressing shock therefore
acts as quite a strong criticism of the lecturers, the university and their training as students.
83
Criticising the university’s inadequate training implies he has the right to be critical about
this. Enjoying and exercising such a right reflects a consumerist discourse of ‘value-for-
money’ which advocates the right to criticise a product or service that does not meet your
expectations - especially if the product or service is paid for. The implication is that the
lecturers (and the university) are positioned as service providers, obliged to supply a specified
and particular education to the rightful, paying recipient, the student-consumer.
As shown in the two extracts above, Michael’s discourse is demonstrative of both the
subordinate and consumer subject positions respectively. As subordinate, he positions himself
with no power to influence what or how he studied. As a consumer, however, he could
exercise agency and autonomy in the learning process (in that he could direct his own
learning with regards to statistics). As a consumer he undermined academic discourse: He did
not have to be satisfied with being trained only in the basics of statistics; he shopped around
on the internet and purchased a statistics guide so that he could direct his own training in
statistics. He therefore brings the economic discourse to bear upon the political discourse by
exercising an agency which is enabled by his status as consumer. This served to undermine
the dominance of the lecturers and the university and challenge his position as subordinate in
the student-institution interaction.
Julie’s text also evidenced the presence of the subordinate and consumer subject
positions. The conversation in the following extract concerns how she would interact with her
students if she had been a lecturer:
Extract 13: (Julie)
1 S: No, I think every university has their pros and their cons, their goods and their bad,
2 […] thinking about students and really getting to know students you work with is very
3 important so, is this student very structured, is this student spontaneous, you know, I can
4 let her be free a little bit, getting to know your, getting to know my students would be
5 very important, and because I am in a way giving them a service, I think that would be
6 important to me as a superior, yeah, in any, in any degree, to my undergraduates, to
84
7 postgraduates, I really don’t like the fact that they treat undergraduates so badly [laughs],
8 yeah.
9 I: Ok how do they treat them badly?
10 S: Well, when I was sitting in a third year class I think, erm, our lecturer literally told us,
11 don’t come to me, don’t talk to me, don’t ask me questions until you get to postgraduate,
12 then I will take you seriously, so it was, erm, needless to say half the class failed, erm
13 because of that, but, yeah, I think, students need guidance in a way, and you, you also
14 can’t always say when you let the reigns go and when you let them fly, but that’s
15 something that you have to work out, as a, as a individual who has taken on an academic
16 position, you’re working with students and you were a student once, so, ya.
In this extract, Julie describes how “badly” (Line 7) they were treated as
undergraduate students. She relates an incident in which a lecturer had told the students not to
ask questions and that he would only take them seriously once they reach postgraduate level
(Lines 9 – 11). Her sentiments about allowing students to be “free a little bit” (Line 4) and
knowing when to “let the reins go and when you let them fly” (Line 14) constructs her
lecturers as having limited and restricted her freedom as a student. As was the case with
Michael’s account in Extract 11, Julie’s account serves to position her as a subordinate
subject to a restricting learning process. (Drawing on this dominant political educational
discourse, Julie also constructs the subordinate subject position in Extract 5 in her account of
how her supervisor had told her that she could not write.)
The consumer subject position is demonstrated in Julie’s first turn when she makes
explicit the consumerist discourse in her utterance, “I am in a way, giving them a service”
(Line 4). Even though there is no explicit mention of a financial transaction, her utterance
implies dissatisfaction with the “service” she received from her lecturers. Her sentiments
about getting to know one’s students in order to provide them with appropriate instruction
also construct education as if it should be tailored to each student’s individual needs and
personalities. The consumer discourse is also evident in her utterance, “I think every
university has their pros and cons” (Line 1). First, it indicates that universities are constructed
85
similarly to corporate organisations which are compared with each other and evaluated in
terms of what (products and services) they can and cannot offer. Second, it also highlights
that students today have the luxury of picking and choosing between tertiary education
institutions like consumers shopping at a supermarket. This, by implication, means
universities have to compete with each other for patrons just as merchants have to compete
for customers, a fact Julie demonstrates in the following extract:
Extract 14: (Julie)
1 S: […] I like working, I never really was against working hard or anything like that […]
2 if anything I’m a little frustrated where I am, dissertation-wise, so if I had, I think if I
3 had, I got a second chance, I would have probably considered going to a different
4 university that completed things in a year, because that’s how I am, I like finishing
5 things, on time, good time periods, using time well, basically, and there were times in
6 this year where, I wasn’t busy, and you know I don’t think that’s where I should’ve been,
7 I sh-, think I should have been working hard all the time, yeah, so.
Julie’s uptake of the consumer subject position is evident in the way she notes that,
had she known that she would not finish her dissertation in one year, she “would have
probably considered going to a different university that completed things in a year” (Lines 3
– 4). With the commercialisation of education, the scenario in which Julie could have chosen
a different institution at which to study is a very real possibility and one that all universities
today have to contend with. By positioning herself as a consumer she is able to evaluate and
criticise her university training (and her dissertation supervisor), thus undermining and
challenging the dominance of academic discourse.
Denise’s uptake of the subordinate position is demonstrated in the following extract:
Extract 15: (Denise)
1 I: If you think of your working relationships that you had with you lecturers this past year,
2 erm, what would you say, if anything, in that process facilitated you learning?
86
3 S: Well, for me, an informal atmosphere and an informal relationship works a lot better than
4 a formal relationship, obviously you always need boundaries, you can’t treat them like
5 your buddy, but the atmosphere here is very relaxed, and you can go and call them by
6 their first names, you can chat with them and joke with them, and that, for me, was a
7 great way to relax and to not feel like I’m a student imposing on their time but more like,
8 not an equal, but sort of like a mentor-mentee relationship more than a strict relationship,
9 just having, sort of, someone come in and say, you have to be here and if you’re five
10 minutes late, you’re in trouble, and sort of treating you like children, that for me is very
11 much, like, ok, whatever, I’m not a child […] that doesn’t work for me in terms of
12 opening up […] so yes, I think it’s crucial to have that openness and to not have some
13 closed-off, strict relationship.
Denise relates that, for her, “an informal relationship…works a lot better than a
formal relationship” (Lines 3 – 4). She notes that a “mentor-mentee relationship” (Line 8)
[rather than a formal lecturer-student relationship (Lines 8 -9)] is “a great way to relax and to
not feel like I’m a student imposing on their time” (Line 7). These sentiments construct the
formal lecturer-student relationship as undesirable in comparison to the mentor-mentee
relationship. In specific, she maintains that a formal lecturer-student relationship is “closed
off” and “strict” (Line 13). Moreover, students are treated “like children” (Line 10) and as
such are not “equal” (Line 8) to the lecturers. These sentiments construct the subordinate
subject position.
Although Denise does not make explicit mention of ‘service delivery’ as was the case
with Michael and Julie, as is shown in the following extract, her text also evidenced the
presence of the consumer subject position:
Extract 16: (Denise)
1 I: How did you come to study psychology?
2 S: […] I had never been exposed to it before, at a first year level, even then I found it quite
3 fascinating, ‘cause it’s a little bit technical, it’s a little bit creative, sort of encompasses a
4 lot of different types of learning, so, yeah, I really enjoyed psychology so I decided to
5 major in that, also in communications, so I kept the media, journalism side open, but I
6 also followed what I enjoyed which was psychology, and then second, third year, just
7 carried on studying, enjoyed it even more, found communications when it came to
87
8 studying and the exams I found them terrible, essays yuk, boring, and obviously I didn’t
9 love studying psychology, cause no one loves studying [laughs] […]
10 I: What expectations did you have of being a student, when you first started studying and
11 how have those expectations changed or evolved, if they have, through the course of
12 your study journey?
13 S: […] At postgrad you also start thinking about how you’re gonna apply this to the
14 working world, it’s not just like, well, I’ve got three more years, its fine, you know, it’s
15 sort of like, well next year I’ve gotta get a job, what am I doing, so it became a lot more
16 focussed and directional for me when it came to postgrad, because you’d have to start
17 thinking, ok, I’m not just doing a general BA now, what am I going to do with my life,
18 and it becomes a lot more, when you start studying you start thinking about how this is
19 going to work for the, like, for the rest of your life, am I interested in this topic, am I
20 gonna be able to do this for the rest of my life, so that, for me, became a much more key
21 thought in my mind […]
In her first turn, Denise relates that she “really enjoyed” (Line 4) studying psychology
because it was “fascinating” (Line 3). Her description constructs psychology as stimulating
and interesting. Moreover, she notes that because she enjoyed psychology she decided to
major in it. In other words, it was the enjoyment of the subject which motivated her to major
in psychology. Learning is thus constructed with the instrumental aim of enjoyment as its
driving factor. Such instrumentality suggests the presence of a consumerist discourse
(Williams, 2013). This instrumental character is also evident in her second turn when she
notes that, at postgraduate level, studying “became a lot more focussed and directional” (Line
7). In specific, higher education became a vehicle for Denise to explore and find a vocation
that she would “be able to do for the rest of [her] life” (Line 11). Studying is therefore not
constructed with the primary aim of intellectual development but is rather geared towards an
extra-curricular outcome (vocational satisfaction). This suggests that, for her, higher
education was directed more at non-educational objectives and less at the scholarly
endeavour. Such a consumerist orientation stands to challenge the status quo of higher
education and undermine the traditional outcomes of teaching and learning.
88
The subordinate and consumer subject positions were also evident in Vincent’s text.
However, unlike Michael and Julie and Denise, Vincent did not construct the subordinate
subject position as one which restricted his freedom as a student:
Extract 17: (Vincent)
1 I: Would you say there was more of, a deeper level of engagement with content, with
2 resources, or whatever, at master’s level than undergrad?
3 S: It was, at undergrad it was very superficial, they, well compared to now, superficial in
4 the sense that they asked a question, you gave an answer, erm, you know, that’s it, you’re
5 either right of you’re wrong.
6 I: Did you feel any control in that process?
7 S: None at all, no, none at all, I was prescribed what I was supposed to study, erm, I knew
8 that there were certain things the lecturers like to focus on, or that was more important,
9 the more accurate I can give back the information the better marks I got, so that was my
10 goal, erm, to basically convey it back, exactly what’s in the textbook.
In this extract Vincent maintains that, at undergraduate level, there was not much
room for manoeuvring when it came to subject content: He describes the process as
“superficial” (Line 3) in that the lecturers asked the questions and students gave the answers.
Moreover, he notes, “that’s it, you’re either right or wrong” (Lines 4 – 5). In other words,
students had little choice but to accept the status quo. He relates that he did not feel any
control in this process and that the goal became one of re-conveying “exactly what’s in the
textbook” (Line 10) in the test or exam. This suggests an awareness on his part that his status
quo as a student did not afford him much power in the learning process. However, as is
shown in the following extract, he did not construct this condition as having impinged on his
freedom.
Extract 18: (Vincent)
1 I: And what makes a good lecturer?
89
2 S: […] The ideal lecturer, erm, I would say it’s someone that had to be, erm, someone that
3 was able to give clear instructions of what they want, erm give background information
4 of, erm what they want, how they want it, basically, erm, just to add another level and
5 then erm, to give it some context, some instructions on why they want it that way and not
6 any other way, basically, erm I think having those sort of level of instructions would
7 probably facilitate the best learning, factual and contextual, so a lecturer who would be
8 able to give instructions in that way, I think, would benefit my learning […]
9 I: Can I ask why, why do you want those instructions?
10 S: It’s, it’s for me personally, it’s my method of learning, erm that’s how I learn, erm you
11 tell me what to do, I do it on my own, figure it out on my own, that’s how I learn, you
12 tell me how to, you tell me what you want to do, and how you want it done, you give a
13 little more context, then, I know a little more of what exactly you’re expecting, erm so
14 then, but then I’ll do it on my own, figure it out on my own, if I have a problem, then I
15 can come back to you, if I don’t understand something then I can come back to you,
16 that’s why the instructions are so important, the clearer the instructions are the less
17 reason there is for me to come back to you if I do get stuck […]
Vincent’s discourse suggests that he was content to operate within the confines and
prescriptions provided by the lecturers and university. He notes that his learning is best
facilitated when lecturers “give clear instructions of what they want” (Line 3). This suggests
that not only was he comfortable with the structure imposed upon the learning process but
also that he preferred or desired this structure. He maintains that, if he knows exactly what
the lecturers expect he is able to “figure it out on [his] own” (Lines 13 - 14). He therefore
does not construct the prescriptions of academic discourse as having restricted or limited his
freedom.
This extract illustrates the notion that learning is constructed as an exchange between
lecturer and student. Vincent explicitly constructs a conditional ‘if-then’ position, noting
several times that if the lecturers provide him with instructions he will figure it (the work) out
on his own. He further notes that if the instructions are clear, there will be less reason for him
to come back to the lecturers. As such, learning is constructed similarly to a product or
service that can be bartered between supplier and consumer. The extract also demonstrates
90
the expectations that students have regarding their tuition: Not only does Vincent expect that
lecturers provide him with instructions but he also expects these instructions to be “specific”
and “very clear” (Lines 4 – 5). This facilitates the positioning of lecturers as responsible for
‘imparting’ a ‘specified’ education to students.
Buying into a consumer position allowed Vincent to manipulate the learning situation:
In Extract 1, for example, he notes that, “your parents are paying for it [tertiary education],
why not go” (Line 12). This positions him as entitled to attending class by virtue of the fact
that his education is being paid for by his parents. Extract 1 also demonstrates that his class
attendance was not primarily aimed at the pursuit of knowledge per se. Rather, attending
class had an instrumental focus, targeted at making the learning “a lot quicker and a lot
easier” (Line 13). He also notes how “it gets complicated when you don’t know what’s going
on” (Line 14) and how, without going to class, “you have to figure it out for yourself” (Line
16). Class attendance is therefore constructed not with the aim of intellectual development
but, rather, with the instrumental aim of minimising the time required to prepare for exams
and to keep studying uncomplicated. As such, he positions himself as a student who
consumes education and engages with academic discourse on his own terms, as and when he
sees fit. Rather than engaging with the classes and subject content in the way prescribed by
the lecturers and university, he followed a ‘work-smarter-not-harder’ approach in his studies.
In doing so he was able to undermine the prescriptions and expectations of the lecturers and
university.
Harry’s text also evidenced the subordinate and consumer subject positions. Consider
the following extracts:
Extract 19: (Harry)
1 S: […] You started to feel as though it was this package that they’re offering you, like do
2 this, it was all about just passing, really, just going to the exams and getting the credits
91
3 and getting your 120 points to get your degree, you know, ‘cause everything was so
4 quick, everything was so fast paced, I think that’s the sort of like full time way, you gotta
5 go from lecture to lecture to lecture, and, when you’re studying you’re just studying so
6 that, you know, you can understand that material there and go into the exam and pass,
7 you’re studying for the exams, you know, so that’s what undergrad was like for me, it’s
8 just, just going to class into the lecture, sit there, make sure you understand what the
9 books says, then use that book to write the exam.
In his description of his undergraduate studies, he notes how it felt as if studying “was
this package they’re offering you” (Line 1). He also maintains that studying became focused
on understanding “what the book says, then use that book to write the exam” (Lines 8 -9). He
notes that full time study was “so quick…so fast paced” (Lines 3 – 4) that there was not much
time for anything except going to class and obtaining sufficient credit in order to sit for the
exam. Although he does not make explicit the notion of power, the implication is that
students simply had to contend with the status quo of undergraduate study if they wanted to
complete their degrees. As such, Harry text also demonstrates the subordinate subject
position.
As was the case with Denise, Harry’s uptake of the consumer subject position was
also associated with the attainment of instrumental goals beyond the academic endeavour:
Extract 20: (Harry)
1 I: And then you seem to have enjoyed your honour’s and master’s more, why is that?
2 S: I think it was because I had more time to actually think about what I was doing, you
3 know, where is this degree gonna take me in life, and when you, when, where I was
4 working I was doing pastoral counselling, working in a church environment, and you
5 know counselling and doing play therapy with little children and then you know doing
6 community work, that, it makes you realise that listen this is something I really enjoy and
7 the psychology will allow me to do this for a career, you know, I’ll, let’s say, become a
8 counselling psychologist or research psychologist and then I’ll be able to do counselling
9 for the rest of my life and get paid to do it or I’ll be able to go and do community work
10 and do research about it, so that’s when I think when you can see how it comes together
11 with your vision, like maybe your longer term goals, that’s when you really start
12 enjoying it because it’s more of a long term, long term thing, you’re not just committing
13 to the subject to pass the exam, you’re seeing the further benefits further down the line,
92
14 so I mean now with my dissertation it’s, it’s not something I’m doing just, just for the
15 dissertation, it’s something I’m doing maybe for the next ten years at least, I’m hoping,
16 that this will be something I’ll be passionate about and I’ll be doing work within this
17 field and you know, I’ll be making a career out of this and enjoy that career so it’s not
18 just something to get the piece of paper, ‘cause, then after that, you know I must then
19 discover my passion, so I think, that’s it is discovering the, the passion and then you
20 know you can see that oh this degree is gonna help me to, to take my passion and just
21 make it a career.
In his description of his postgraduate studies, Harry makes explicit the notion that
postgraduate study was not “just committing to the subject to pass the exam” (Lines 12 -13)
as was the case at undergraduate study. Rather studying became focussed on what he really
enjoyed (Line 6) and on the “benefits further down the line” (Line 13). He also notes that he
was not doing his dissertation “just for the dissertation” (Lines 14 - 15) but that it would be
something he will be passionate about and that he will be able to make a career out of it
(Lines 14 – 17). This indicates that learning was not focussed on the intellectual pursuit.
Rather, psychology became a vehicle for him to explore and find enjoyment and “passion”
(Line 20) in what he was studying as well as serving as a potential career prospect. As such,
his uptake of the consumer subject position serves to undermine the educational outcomes
espoused by higher education, and thus challenges the dominance of academic discourse.
93
Chapter 5: Discussion
The paradox that students face in higher education concerns the way in which they are
constituted by the dominant discourses of academia. Throughout their socialisation into the
academy students undergo formal instruction in order to learn the culture and practices
associated with their fields of study. Mastery of their fields of study therefore occurs through
a process of being enslaved into their disciplines. The discourses of enslavement work to
discipline students in the ways of the academy and students have little choice but to concede
to being enslaved. At the same time, however, students are expected to demonstrate mastery
in managing their studies and to break free from the shackles of dependence on guidance and
instruction. The paradox therefore lies in the disparate constitution of students as enslaved
masters. Academia’s popular view of undergraduate study as a period of enslavement and
that of postgraduate study as the period in which emancipation should take place, punctuates
the paradox as a temporal sequence. Punctuating the paradox as a temporal sequence,
however, does not resolve the dilemma. The discourses of enslavement and mastery work
simultaneously throughout the student’s socialisation. The paradox therefore permeates the
entire learning process.
Developing a coherent identity as a student is fundamental in the student’s
socialisation. The student’s position as both master and slave, however, presents the student
with a dilemma. In order to arrive at a coherent sense of self, the student has to ‘work up’ an
identity that resolves the discrepancies in the paradox of mastering through enslavement. This
is a process of emancipation. It is in the resolution of these discrepancies that student agency
manifests. The greater the student agency the more emancipated s/he becomes. The empirical
results support this dynamic.
Three interpretive repertoires were present in in participants’ account of being
students. These repertoires permitted participants to draw on different understandings or lived
94
ideologies of what it means to be a student. In doing so they constructed their identities in
various ways. In other words they engaged these repertoires in particular ways and, in so
doing, demonstrated the uptake of particular subject positions. However, the use of these
repertoires did not yield a smooth or seamless account of their socialisation into academia.
The repertoires revealed discrepancies with regards to the subject positions participants
inhabited in their texts. The three repertoires identified were a behavioural repertoire, a
competence repertoire and a power repertoire. The behavioural repertoire enabled
participants to construct the behaviours they engaged in as students. A competence repertoire
was used to refer to matters regarding their academic or disciplinary competence. A power
repertoire, which entailed both a political discourse and an economic discourse of
consumerism framed the power dynamics at work in the student-institution interaction.
1. The Behavioural Repertoire
The behavioural repertoire illuminated the typical behaviours participants engaged in
as students. Each participant’s discourse revealed the presence of contradictory subject
positions with regards to their behaviours. In other words, participants described behaviours
that were conflictual in nature. Vincent’s employ of this repertoire constructed his behaviour
in terms of an independent student and a dependent student subject position. Michael’s text
evidenced behaviours that reflected the identity of both a dedicated student and that of an
undedicated student. The behaviours constructed in Denise’s account concern the subject
positions associated with a student who took control of her studies as well as a student who
was not in control of her learning. The two subject positions constructed in Harry’s text
demonstrated the presence of a disenfranchised subject position as a student and a franchised
position. Julie’s account revealed the uptake of the subject positions of the defiant student
and the accepting student.
95
The presence of such conflicting behaviours reflects the contradictory nature of the
lived ideologies or common sense understandings of what it means to be a student.
Considering that these conflicting ideologies hold implications for how students can and/or
should behave, it is no surprise that the behaviours constructed in participants’ texts conflict
with each other. Moreover, the disparate nature of these ‘ways of being’ suggests that
students experience this paradox in their undertaking of higher education: The independent,
in-control, dedicated, franchised and defiant subject positions reflect the discourses of
mastery which dictate that students take responsibility for their own learning and
autonomously navigate their academic socialisation. The subject positions of the dependent,
not in-control, undedicated, disenfranchised and accepting student, in contrast, reflect the
discourses of enslavement that construct the lecturers and university as responsible for
directing students’ socialisation into academia.
The data suggest the way in which students resolve the predicaments associated with
these conflicting lived ideologies is by working a particular face in their interactions with
academic discourse. In other words, in order to inhabit and project a coherent identity each
participant had to integrate these disparate ways of behaving. Vincent resolved the conflicts
associated with inhabiting an independent and a dependent subject position by performing the
face of a strategic student. A strategist can demonstrate both independence as well as
dependence. As such he was able to assimilate the independence he showed in terms of
managing and directing his own socialisation with his dependence on his lecturers for
instruction and guidance. By working the face of the developing student, Denise projected the
identity of a student in the process of developing. This served to marry her being in control of
her studies (which she achieved by organising and structuring her learning environment and
earning good marks in the exams) and not being in control (when the learning environment
became less structured and more demanding). Learning the contents of a prescribed book by
96
heart is an acceptable activity for a developing student, even though taking control of her
learning in such a way is, as she noted, not the ideal. Not being in control of her studies is
also accounted for by performing the face of a student who is still developing (whereas such
behaviour would be incongruent with a developed student). By working the face of a
successful student, Michael was able to assimilate being an undedicated socialite, who
overindulged in the social aspects of student life, with the behaviour of a dedicated student:
As a successful master’s student he could define himself as a dedicated student despite
having failed a few subjects. Harry’s position as a disenfranchised student, who was denied a
legitimate and meaningful engagement with his studies, could be integrated with his desire
for a franchised position by working the face of a passionate student. Working this face, he
could transcend his disenfranchisement by looking for - and finding - passion outside the
academic boundaries dictated by his lecturers, university and even the discipline of
psychology. In a similar way, working the face of the capable student enabled Julie to
integrate her defiance with the position of the accepting student. It is in the assimilation of
these disparate behaviours – in the working of their face – that students address and resolve
the paradox with which they are confronted. Performing a particular face served to integrate
different ‘ways of being’ a student. It is in the integration of the opposing identities evident in
participants’ texts that student agency reveals itself. And it is in the operation of this agency
that the emancipating student appears. The emancipating student is thus a strategist, who
demonstrates an awareness of the demands of the context as well as the ability to act upon
these demands. Emancipation is found in the developing student, whose agency lies a striving
for self-actualisation. The emancipating student displays an inner passion that has a
motivating effect on his/her personal drive. The emancipating student displays an agency in
striving for and attaining success by taking the demands of the environment into account
whilst realising his/her personal ability. And it is in the agency of the capable student, who
97
can recognise and respond to the demands of the environment as well as his/her own
strengths and shortcomings, where an emancipating contribution is realised.
2. The Competence Repertoire
The competence repertoire revealed how participants positioned their identities in
relation to academic competence. In specific, it showed how participants constructed their
identities in terms of the expert-novice dichotomy. The analysis suggests the paradox
manifests in the disparate constitution of the student as both expert and novice. By taking up
the position of novice, participants bought into an enslaving discourse. Taking up the expert
position, in contrast, is demonstrative of a discourse of mastery. The resolution of this
paradox is complicated because the expert-novice dichotomy, which constructs the lecturer as
expert and the student as novice, is constituted by the dominant discourses of the university.
Vincent, Michael and Denise’s texts indicates the presence of both expert and novice
positions. Adopting both positions suggests they buy into the paradox of mastery through
enslavement. Taking up the novice position (as a student with limited knowledge) as well as
the expert position (as a student who could apply knowledge and to whom the facts come
automatically) is paradoxical and presents Vincent with a dilemma. The same is true of
Michael and Denise: Michael’s uptake of the expert position is evidenced in his account of
how he could create his own role as a master’s student. In contrast, requiring his supervisor to
take him by the hand when he was confronted with a problem is demonstrative of the novice
position. Denise demonstrated the position of expert by becoming the self-learner and the
position of novice who preferred to be shown, step by step, what to do in the workshops.
Harry and Julie’s employ of the competence repertoire is interesting because their
accounts do not relate both positions as was the case with Vincent, Michael and Denise.
Harry’s text evidenced the uptake of the position of novice but not the position of expert
whereas Julie’s account showed the uptake of only the expert position and not the position of
98
novice. Harry’s text suggests he downplayed his expertise, locating expertise with his
lecturers and supervisor rather than with himself. He does not show awareness of the
mastering discourse in terms of academic expertise. His discourse therefore does not show an
awareness of the paradoxical nature of the mastering-enslavement discourse. Julie’s discourse
shows an active negation of the expertise of the lecturers. The criteria for her expertise are
therefore not based on the mastery of the discipline but on the negation of the criteria of
expertise (rejecting expert opinion).
The dynamics of this repertoire’s functioning is not simple: The resolution of the
paradox in this repertoire did not lie in an integration of the conflicting subject positions as
was the case in the behavioural repertoire. In order to address and resolve the conflicts
associated with taking up both the positions of expert and novice, the face-work demonstrated
by Vincent and Michael was directed towards addressing the position of novice. By locating
the problems he encountered in the learning process as a function of some factor unrelated to
competency or expertise, Vincent resisted the novice position. In other words, his face-work
sought to undermine the position of novice rather than to explicitly position him as expert. In
contrast, the face-work evident in Michael’s account was actively directed at positioning his
identity as an expert (which he achieved through his deconstruction of the positions of expert
and novice). Although Denise’s account evidences both positions of expert and novice, and
even though her discourse suggests that the incongruity associated with these conflicting
positions is dilemmatic for her, she did not work towards a resolution of these conflicts.
Rather than rescinding the position of novice, as was the case with Vincent and Michael, she
ordered these positions along a complicated spatio-temporal path projecting from the learning
context into the work context, and she relates the expert position to negative emotional
impact. Julie’s text did not indicate the uptake of the novice position. In other words, there
99
was no need for her to resist the novice position. Instead, her face-work involved
‘accomplishing’ her expertise by downplaying the expertise of her lecturers.
Vincent and Michael’s text indicate awareness of the novice position. However, their
face-work was directed at resisting/defending against the novice position. In other words,
they were aware that, as students, they had to move from a novice position to an expert
position. Their agency is demonstrated in this awareness, a condition fundamental for
emancipation. Vincent’s agency lay in his resistance of the novice position. Michael’s
deconstruction of the positions of expert and novice constructs his expertise not in terms of
academic expertise but in his ability to make active choices and to create his own role as a
student. In other word, even though he was aware of the demands of the environment, he
redefined these demands, locating agency in the choices he made. Denise’s account
demonstrated an intense awareness of the demands of the environment as well as the
expertise needed in order to address the demands. Although she displayed awareness of the
conflicts associated with the disparate positions of expert and novice, she remained caught up
in this awareness. Rather than demonstrating agency in resolving these conflicts, she failed to
do so. (From a psychological point of view, this must have created anxiety for her. She dealt
with this anxiety by postponing the resolution through a future projection.) Although Harry’s
text only evidenced the position of novice, his discourse indicated awareness that being a
novice is not preferable. He did not, however, actively resist the position of novice as was the
case with Vincent. As was the case with Denise, the demonstration of agency on Harry’s part
was absent. Julie showed awareness of the demands of the environment but she negated these
demands and ignored the fact that she needed ability and expertise to meet the demands.
From a psychological point of view this is problematic because the behaviour seems
obstructive. (Recall that she rejects expert criticism of her writing skills on the grounds of her
own perception of her ability.)
100
In the light of this, the process of becoming an emancipated student in terms of
disciplinary expertise is a difficult journey. The possibility for emancipation was undermined
by ignorance of demands and denial of requirements, and anxiety accompanied the awareness
of the need for emancipation. Those who managed to embark on emancipatory behaviour
struggled. They had to actively resist novice-ness without clearly seeing their way forward,
and when becoming aware of the way forward demands were dodged by personal choices.
3. The Power Repertoire
The power repertoire reflected the power differentials present in academic discourse
which constitute students as subordinate to lecturers, universities and knowledge. Academic
discourse is organised such that students are not and can never really hold the power. It is the
institution that holds the power and the student, mostly, has to abide by it. In other words, the
dominant position is not available for students to inhabit. They can only really ever be
subordinate. However, drawing on an economic discourse, participants positioned themselves
as consumers of education. This subject position allowed them to undermine their lecturers
and universities. The consumerist position stands to challenge the dominance of academic
discourse and as such, the economic discourse is brought to bear on the political discourse.
The dynamics of the power repertoire entailed the operation of two discourses, a
political discourse (where ‘political’ refers to the ‘politics of academia’, which constitute
students as lower ranking in the academic hierarchy than lecturers, the university and
disciplinary knowledge) and an economic discourse of consumerism. Drawing on a political
discourse, participants constructed themselves as subordinates with little power in the
learning process. Drawing on an economic discourse facilitated a positioning of participants’
identities as consumers of education. Their consumer status afforded them a certain degree of
power as paying customers of their universities. The economic discourse was thus brought to
101
bear on the political discourse and, as such, served to challenge the discourses of
enslavement.
The empirical data revealed the presence of both the subordinate and consumer
subject positions across all participants’ texts. All participants but Vincent constructed the
subordinate position as one which impinged on their freedom as students (insofar as they had
no say in their studies; they simply had to do as they were told). Even though Vincent’s text
did not construct the subordinate position as restricting, he was aware of his subordinate
position as a student. The presence of the consumer subject position across participants’ texts
demonstrates their resistance to not being in a position of power.
The consumer position was used to undermine academic discourse as it afforded
participants the agency to criticise their lecturers, training and universities. Michael, Julie and
Denise’s criticisms of their training reflects an agency that allowed them to voice their
dissatisfaction with their training. Denise and Harry’s texts indicate that learning was not
undertaken with the primary objective of scholarly development but rather served
instrumental aims beyond the learning encounter. It is in these actions – in criticising and
questioning their lecturers and their coursework and in using their status as consumers - that
the agency of the student reveals itself. The emancipating student is therefore a consumer
who uses his/her status as rightful and paying customer to seek value for money in his/her
education.
4. Conclusion
As was evident from the literature review presented in Chapter 2, current
conceptualisations regarding students’ socialisation into the academy does not highlight the
paradox of learning that students have to navigate throughout their academic careers. Such
research reflects that the discourses of enslavement work to discipline students into the ways
and means of their universities and their fields of study. However, even though such research
102
serves to criticise and problematise the nature and dynamics of academic discourse it does not
address the paradoxical situation with which students are confronted, nor the manner in
which they attempt to resolve these discrepancies. The results of this study clearly
demonstrate the presence and awareness of the mastering through enslavement paradox. As
shown in the analytic results, students buy into both discourses of enslavement and mastery.
Given the paradox it is not surprising that participants’ text revealed the uptake of conflicting
subject positions. Their resolution of these disparate ‘ways of being’ revealed an agency
which, as van Deventer (2010) notes, has the potential to disrupt and dislocate existing
frames of reference, and thus, facilitates the emancipation of the student.
103
Chapter 6: Reflection and Validation
1. Reflection
The constructive effects of discourse highlight the inescapable truth that the
researcher and the researched cannot be “meaningfully separated” (Taylor, 2001b, p. 17). The
epistemological departure point in discourse research necessitates acknowledging the
influence the researcher has on the research process. The researcher’s personal and social
attributes can potentially influence the research and its outcomes in various ways. Taylor
(2001b) notes two specific areas where the researcher’s identity becomes relevant to the
research, namely during data collection and during analysis and interpretation.
With respect to data collection, the aspects of my identity which need to be taken into
consideration pertain to the duality in my institutional status: At the time of data collection I
was a student completing my master’s degree in psychology, which was the same degree the
participants were studying towards. I was also a junior lecturer at the same institution and
department where the participants were completing their degrees. Being a student studying
towards the same degree as the participants (although not in the same year as they were)
helped establish a certain camaraderie between the participants and myself. Both the
participants and I were apprentices undergoing the same socialisation into the same academic
discourse community. I could thus identify with them and share in their trials and tribulations
as they could identify with me and share in mine. This allowed me to approach the
participants as an insider who shared their situation and interests (Taylor, 2001b). Having
somewhat of an insider status, as well as already having being acquainted with the
participants through my interactions with them in class, aided in establishing an ‘easy’
rapport with the participants, and, as such, the interviews were relaxed and of an informal
tone.
104
The interview context itself would undoubtedly have had some influence on
participants accounts. Any interview is likely to elicit (at least some) feelings of anxiety in
respondents, especially if the interviewer is an authority figure (if only by virtue of his
institutional status). My association with the university at which they were studying, together
with my status as lecturer on the course they were studying, could therefore have influenced
participants to offer socially desirable responses that might differ in other, less intimidating
situations. However, my status as student and the fact that I was undertaking the same degree
as the participants could also have mitigated my status as lecturer, allowing respondents to
feel more free to express what ‘being a student’ meant to them.
The interview questions may also have affected the responses offered by participants
(Taylor, 2001b). Interview questions set the context for the conversation and, as such, frame
the topic under discussion in a particular way. In other words, the topic - participants’
academic socialisation experiences – was framed in terms of the themes contained in the
interview questions. The interview questions may have raised issues that the participants may
not otherwise have considered relevant to the topic or they could have excluded topics that
participants deemed relevant to the discussion but were not covered in the interview (Taylor,
2001b). In this regard, the pilot interviews were used as a measure to ensure that the
interview questions captured the research topic as comprehensively as possible and excluded
topics that were not relevant to the investigation. In addition, the semi-structured character of
the interviews and the open-ended nature of the questions allowed participants, if they so
wished, the opportunity to broach topics additional to those contained in the interview
questions. However, this was no guarantee that they took advantage of this opportunity.
Furthermore, the nature of interviews in general, that is, how they proceed according
to a protocol where the interviewer asks a question and the interviewee is expected to
respond, may have affected what participants said and what they did not. Usually, the
105
interviewer also directs the interview and thus, to a large extent, also controls the discourse
parameters of the conversation. The subject position enabled by my status as interviewer was
inevitably also more ‘expert’ when considered in relation to the only position participants
could adopt (i.e. as interviewees and subjects of research). Participants could therefore only
speak of their socialisation experiences from the position of ‘less-expert’ research participant
and only in terms made possible by the interview questions, which I, as the more-expert
researcher (and lecturer) asked. (This is quite reminiscent of classroom situations where the
lecturer’s voice is favoured since participants could only speak from the position of
respondent in an interview and, thus, as Potter’s necessary but lacking objects).
During data analysis, the knowledge and worldview of the researcher also potentially
influences the processes of analysis and interpretation (Taylor, 2001b). The act of identifying,
labelling and defining a section of discourse necessarily involves the analyst’s interpretive
schemata (Burman & Parker, 1993). In order to guard against (further) imposing my own
categories on the data, the categories used in the coding process were largely defined by the
interview questions and used under the assumption that the meanings of these categories (for
example, ‘undergraduate lecturer’ or ‘postgraduate student’) were mutually agreed upon and
understood by both participants and interviewer through their negotiations of these meanings
in the interviews. However, the claims made by this study can by no means be said to be
uninfluenced by the researcher’s own worldview. My interpretation of a sequence of data as
representative of, for example, a consumerist discourse cannot be said to be free from my
own experiences of and interactions with academic discourse: My tertiary education started in
1995 which was arguably after the advent of the marketisation of education. Considering this,
I am not familiar with education that is non-consumerist in nature. My own academic
socialisation also inevitably involved negotiating the expert-novice discourse. I therefore also
know how to go about constructing a position of expertise. As with the participants in this
106
study, I too know about the ‘dos and don’ts’ of ‘being a student’ and have also played ‘the
game of academia’. However, as much as these experiences can be seen to bias the analysis
and interpretation of the data, being familiar with what it means to be a student can also be
argued as a strength of this research, as I could approach the topic as someone not completely
unfamiliar to the student experience.
Researchers also need to understand the language and social and cultural references
used by the interviewees. The interviews were conducted in English. All participants were
fluent in English, even though, for some, it was not their home language. Although between
five and ten years older than the participants, ‘being a student’ myself meant I was familiar
with ‘student jargon’ such as ‘spotting’ and ‘grafting’. I could therefore draw on my own
local knowledge of what it means to be a student in the analysis and interpretation of the data.
Furthermore, assuming the role of both interviewer and analyst also meant that I could “bring
the experience of the original interaction to the interpretation” (Taylor, 2001b, p. 18).
The often oppositional nature of the different ways of talking about ‘being a student’
that were uncovered in the text highlights the very real lived ideologies that students have to
navigate in academia. The findings from this study are in no way said to represent all the
possible ways of talking about ‘being a student’ that are available for speakers to draw on. At
best the findings from this study could be “generalizable as shared knowledge” (Taylor,
2001a, p. 314) that other speakers can employ in constructing accounts of student-hood.
However, this does not serve as a prediction that these different linguistic resources will be
used by other students in accounts of their learning journeys. Since accounts are constructed
for certain purposes in different contexts, it is plausible that there are many more ways of
speaking about ‘being a student’ which may be employed in other students’ accounts.
107
2. Validation of Findings
Considering the differences between the theoretical and methodological assumptions
of discourse analytic research and the assumptions made when assuming a realist position in
positivist research, the principles of reliability (stability of findings) and validity (truth or
accuracy of findings) need to be reconsidered in light of this study’s onto-epistemology.
Conventionally, in positivist research the assumption is made that “reliability can be assessed
independently of context” (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 164). However, social action does not
occur in a vacuum. As Potter and Wetherell (1987, p. 28) note, “When language is
conceptualised as a form of action performed in discourse between individuals with different
goals we are forced to take the social context into account”. Knowledge generated by
discourse research is therefore situated and contingent on “the specific circumstances of
place, time, and participants in which the research was conducted” (Taylor, 2001a, p. 319).
The focus in discourse research is on language and considering that different words can have
the same meaning in different contexts and the same words can have different meanings in
different contexts, it is imperative to consider the context in which phenomena occur in order
to properly understand their meaning. However, this is problematic for traditional scientific
conceptions since assessing repetition or reliability on a conceptual level is much more
difficult (Wood & Kroger, 2000).
Validity, in conventional research, is assessed in terms of how accurately the findings
from a study mirror aspects of the ‘real’ world. In contrast, since a discursive approach
assumes a position of “epistemological relativism”, the emphasis is on the discursively
constructed nature of the social world (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 166). Discourse has shifting
and multiple meanings: It is therefore impossible to determine whether one version of the
world is better or more accurate or truthful than another. The analyst’s account can therefore
be seen only as one interpretation of a possible many versions of reality and as such, cannot
108
claim truth or falsity (Wood & Kroger, 2000). However, this is not to say that discourse
analysis is subjective or simply the analyst’s opinion: As Gee (1999) notes, validity is
something that different analyses can have more or less of, that is, some analyses may be
more or less valid than others. Furthermore, validity is also never ‘once and for all’, as all
analyses are open to discussion and/or dispute as work progresses in a particular field (Gee,
1999).
Given these considerations, the status of discourse analysis as “an alternative
metatheoretical perspective” warrants a different set of criteria to validate the findings of
research in this tradition (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 163). Three criteria are considered here,
namely fruitfulness, robustness and transparency.
2.1. Fruitfulness
This criterion of validity can be considered “an extra-analytic criterion” (Wood &
Kroger, 2000, p. 175) and refers to the degree to which an analytic scheme is able to give
(coherent) meaning to new kinds of discourse and its ability to produce novel hypotheses and
explanations of the social world (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Tracy (1995, p. 210) holds that a
study is considered fruitful when it is “intellectually implicative for the scholarly community”
in that it should “suggest productive ways to reframe old issues, create links between
previously unrelated issues and raise new questions that are interesting and merit attention”.
The findings from this study can by no means be interpreted as new or novel: Psychological
knowledge is littered with literature referencing ‘consumer education’ and the ‘expert-novice’
dichotomy and the effects these have on education in today’s society. The notion of academic
enslavement is also not a new phenomenon as evidenced by the work of authors such as
Michael Foucault. However, this study does shed light on how these repertoires, as
instantiations of the broader discourses that produce them, enable actors in academia to
‘accomplish’ identity. This research addresses the call to interrogate the subject positions
109
available for students to inhabit in the learning process. In so doing, this research seeks to
challenge the dominant discourse of the university in an attempt to reconstitute the subject
positions available for students in academia.
2.2. Robustness and Transparency
Gilles (2009) notes two further criteria for consideration in the validation of claims
made by discourse analytic research, namely ‘robustness’ and ‘transparency’. Robustness
refers to whether or not the claims made by a body of research are able to withstand
intellectual challenge. Robustness may be achieved by not overstating a study’s claims in
light of the methods employed. In other words, claims made by discourse research are not the
types of claims that are made by positivist research, where findings can be generalised to
larger populations. The point of discourse research is also not to try and ‘capture’ something
in the ‘real’ world, such as ‘students’ or their experiences of ‘academic socialisation’ and
then to generalise it to a larger population of students. Nor is the enterprise aimed at an
attempt to assess the facticity of accounts or descriptions. Instead, as Potter (1996, p. 123)
notes, the goal is to examine how “people themselves manage and understand descriptions
and their facticity” [original emphasis]. Thus there is no attempt at categorising or
characterising the participants or students in general as ‘having’ any particular identity or
identities.
Transparency refers to the extent to which the interpretations and claims made by
discourse research are logically and empirically supported through textual evidence (Gilles,
2009). In order to facilitate transparency in this research, responses to interview questions
were included in full in the extracts so as to allow the reader the opportunity to decide
whether the interpretations and/or claims being made are logical and coherent. Transparency
may also be achieved by acknowledging that the claims made in discourse research are
produced by analysts who bring their own knowledge, understandings and worldviews to the
110
reading and analysis of the data as well as the writing of the report. This is not to say that
such research is therefore a subjective exercise. However, it does mean having to
acknowledge the findings of the research in light of its aims. The emancipatory aim of critical
discourse research informed the reading of the data and the interpretation of the results in this
study. As such, the findings from this study are interpreted against the backdrop of the
paradox of learning.
3. Limitations
Limitations of this study include that data were obtained solely from interviews
conducted with participants. Future research could consider data triangulation by obtaining
information about what ‘being a student’ entails from sources other than interviews, thus
possibly illuminating other aspects relevant to student-hood not made salient in the
interviews. Furthermore, even though the aims and analyses in this study were focussed on
examining discourse at a broader level than is usually the case in conversation analytic work,
employing the Jeffersonian transcription system (rather than the orthographic approach
followed in this research) could yield more insight into the organisation or structure of talk in
academic contexts and how this enables role players to ‘accomplish’ identity.
111
References
Ainsworth, S., & Hardy, C. (2004). Critical discourse analysis and identity: Why bother?
Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2), 225-259. doi: 10.1080/1740590042000302085
Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1997). Social Psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. H. (2002). Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials:
Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 429-453. doi:
10.1177/14614456020040040201
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988).
Ideological Dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage
Publications.
Parker, I., & Burman, E. (1993). Against discursive imperialism, empiricism and
constructionism: Thirty-two problems with discourse analysis. In E. Burman & I. Parker
(Eds.), Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action (pp. 155-
172). London: Routledge.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialisation into academic discourse communities. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169–192. doi: 10.1017/S0267190510000048
Duff, P. A. (2007). Problematising academic discourse socialisation. In H. Marriot, T. Moore,
& R. Spence-Brown (Eds.), Learning discourses and discourses of learning (pp. 1-18).
Melbourne: Monash University ePress. doi: 10.2104/ld070001
Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretive repertoires, ideological dilemmas and
subject positions. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates., Discourse as data: A guide
for analysis (pp. 189-228). London: Sage Publications.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
112
Frand, J. L. (2000). The information age mindset: Changes in students and implications for
higher education. Educause review, 35(5), 15-24.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. (3rd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Gillies, D. (2009). Critical discourse analysis and current education policy. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.
Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work. An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In
Interaction Ritual: Essays in face to face behaviour (pp. 5-45). New York: Doubleday.
Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. In
M. S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school (pp. 55-64). San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Grant, B. (1997). Disciplining students: The construction of student subjectivities. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(1), 101–104. doi: 10.1080/0142569970180106
Haneda, M. (2006). Classrooms as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL
Quarterly 40(4), 807-817. doi: 10.2307/40264309
Hanks, W. F. (1991). Foreword. In J. Lave & E. Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation (pp. 13-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour 21(4), 393-407. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1991.tb00203.x
Ho, Mei-ching. (2007). Academic discourse socialization of American and Taiwanese
graduate students in TESOL: A case study of small-group activities (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT
3270586).
Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific
discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2, 149-181.
113
Jawitz, J. (2009). Academic identities and communities of practice in a professional
discipline. Teaching in Higher Education 14(3), 241-251. doi:
10.1080/13562510902898817
Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method.
London: Sage Publications.
Kigua, P., & Canham, H. (2010). Creating a culture of thinking? Reflections on teaching an
undergraduate critical social psychology course. Acta Academica Supplementum 2, 62-
90.
Kuwahara, N. (2008). It’s not in the orientation manual: How a first year doctoral student
learned to survive in graduate school. In C. P. Casanave & X. Li (Eds.), Learning the
literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation
(pp. 186-200). Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture and Activity 3(3), 149 –
164. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca0303_2
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lessa, L. (2006). Discursive struggles within social welfare: Restaging teen motherhood.
British Journal of Social Work 36(2), 283–298. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bch256
Li, X., & Casanave, C. P. (2008). Introduction. In C. P. Casanave & X. Li (Eds.), Learning
the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation
(pp. 1-11). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Limberg, H. (2007). Discourse structure of academic talk in university office hour
interactions. Discourse Studies 9(2), 176-193. doi: 10.1177/1461445607075343
Lovitts, B. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from
doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
114
Marshall, H., & Raabe, B. (1993). Political discourse: Talking about nationalization and
privitization. In E. Burman & I. Parker (Eds.), Discourse analytic research: Repertoires
and readings of texts in action (pp. 35–51). London: Routledge.
McCabe, A., & O'Connor, U. (2014). Student-centred learning: The role and responsibility of
the lecturer. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4) 350-359. doi:
10.1080/13562517.2013.860111
McDaniels, M. (2010). Doctoral student socialisation for teaching roles. In S. K. Gardner &
P. Mendoza (Eds.), On becoming a scholar: Socialization and development in doctoral
education (pp. 29-44). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Mendoza, P., & Gardner, S. K. (2010). The Ph.D in the United States. In S. K. Gardner & P.
Mendoza (Eds.), On becoming a scholar: Socialization and development in doctoral
education (pp. 11-26). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Mohamed, H. I., & Banda, F. (2008). Classroom discourse and discursive practices in higher
education in Tanzania. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29(2),
95-109. doi:10.2167/jmmd548.0
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic
communities. TESOL Quarterly 38(4), 573-603. doi: 10.2307/3588281
Parker, I. (2001). Lacan, psychology and the discourse of the university. Psychoanalytic
Studies 3(1), 67-77. doi:10.1080/14608950020026854
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social
construction. London: Sage Publications.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London:
Sage Publications.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and
behaviour. London: Sage Publications.
115
Read, B., Archer, L., & Leathwood, C. (2003). Challenging Cultures? Student conceptions of
‘Belonging’ and ‘Isolation’ at a post-1992 university. Studies in Higher Education 28(3),
261-277. doi:10.1080/03075070309290
Taylor, S. (2001a). Evaluating and applying discourse analytic research. In M. Wetherell, S.
Taylor, & S. J. Yates, Discourse as Data: A guide for analysis (pp. 311-330). London:
Sage Publications.
Taylor, S. (2001b). Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In M. Wetherell, S.
Taylor, & S. J. Yates, Discourse as Data: A guide for analysis (pp. 5-48). London: Sage
Publications.
Taylor, S (2007). Narrative as construction and discursive resource. In M. Bamberg (Ed.),
Narrative – State of the Art. Benjamins Current Topics 6 (pp. 113–122). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tracy, K. (1995). Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology 14, 195-215.
Van Deventer, S.H. (2010). Facilitating the emancipation of the learner. Acta Academica
Supplementum 2, 168-181.
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the
legitimation of exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
White, J. W., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2011). Minority college students and tacit “Codes of
Power”: Developing academic discourses and identities. The Review of Higher
Education 34(2), 283-318. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2010.0028
Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2008). Discursive psychology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 73-90). London:
Sage Publications.
116
Williams, J. (2013). Consuming higher education: Why learning can’t be bought. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Willig, C. (2001). Discursive psychology. In Introducing qualitative research in psychology:
Adventures in theory and method (pp. 87–105). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action
in talk and text. London: Sage Publications.
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and
critical introduction. London: Sage Publications.
Zamel, V. (1998). Questioning academic discourse. In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.),
Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures
(pp. 187-197). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
117
Appendix A: Ethical clearance certificate
Department of Psychology
20-06-2013
ETHICAL CLEARANCE OF A RESEARCH PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN
PARTICIPANTS
Project: Academic discourse socialisation: The discursive construction of
students
Researcher: Sean N Hagen
Student number: 36433349
Supervisor: Prof S H van Deventer (Department of Psychology, Unisa)
Co-supervisor: Dr C Ochse (Department of Psychology, Unisa)
The proposal was evaluated for adherence to appropriate standards in respect of ethics
as required by the Psychology Department of Unisa. The application was approved by
the departmental Ethics Committee without any conditions.
Prof P Kruger Department of Psychology College of Human Sciences University of South Africa
118
Appendix B: Consent form
Informed consent form to participate in a research study.
Title of the proposed study:
Academic discourse socialisation: The discursive construction of students
Traditionally, the discourses of teaching and learning surrounding students entering the field
of Psychology have been discourses of ‘enslavement’. In other words, students prescribed to
and had to learn how to become disciplined and professional thinkers within the field of
Psychology. The post-modern information age is breeding a different kind of student with
very different needs to those in the past. This means that the traditional discourses of
enslavement are no longer appropriate when it comes to the teaching and learning of
Psychology. Several researchers have identified this crisis and the need for radical changes in
our approach towards teaching and learning in Psychology is evident and necessary. The
project aims to investigate the enabling and disabling discourses that manifest in the interface
between students of Psychology and the custodians of the discipline. Both students and
custodians of Psychology tap into enabling as well as disabling discourses that maintains the
status quo of teaching and learning in Psychology. The explication of these discourses allows
one to move towards the development of new student and custodian epistemologies in the re-
imagining of Psychology.
We would appreciate your participation in the study. Please sign this consent form to indicate
that you are willing to participate. If you have any questions, please contact me via e-mail or
telephonically.
I have received information concerning the study and I understand the purpose of this research.
I consent to participate in the study subject to the following conditions:
1. I understand that all information regarding myself will be treated confidentially and will
be stored securely.
2. I understand that I am under no obligation to participate and may withdraw from the
research at any time without prejudice.
3. I understand that I receive no payment or compensation for participating in this study.
4. I am aware that the results of the study will be published in the form of a dissertation for
a master’s degree
5. I am hereby informed of the right to access the findings of this study.
.................................................................
Initial(s) & surname of participant
.................................................................. ………………………………………..
Signature of participant Date
Thank you for your participation. Please save a copy of this signed document.
Mr SN Hagen
